Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

London Midland and Scottish Railway (No. 2) Bill.

Bill committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Mr. DAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of permits that have been issued during the previous 12 months, under Article 1 (3) (6) of the Aliens Order, 1920, in respect to women and girls to enable them to take up domestic work in this country; and can she give the original nationality of these persons?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The number of permits issued in respect of alien women to enable them to enter and to take up domestic work in this country during the year 1929 was 4,151. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the detail of this total.

Mr. DAY: Does my right hon. Friend think that it is necessary to bring in 4,000 people under the conditions which exist in this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly

Following is the table:
Permits issued in respect of alien females (women and girls) to enable them to enter and take up domestic work in this country during the year 1929.

From:


America (U.S.A.)
…
…
1


Austria
…
…
142


Belgium
…
…
58


Brazil
…
…
1


Czechoslovakia
…
…
62


Denmark
…
…
636


Holland
…
…
52


Estonia
…
…
5


Finland
…
…
26


France
…
…
371


Germany
…
…
491


Greece
…
…
9


Hungary
…
…
14


Iceland
…
…
2


Italy
…
…
115


Jugo-Slavia
…
…
7


Latvia
…
…
5


Luxemburg
…
…
4


Norway
…
…
109


Persia
…
…
1


Poland
…
…
15


Portugal
…
…
1


Rumania
…
…
7


Russia
…
…
10


Spain
…
…
13


Sweden
…
…
142


Switzerland
…
…
1,852





4,151

RUSSIANS (DEPOETATIONS).

Mr. ALBERY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the number of undesirable aliens of Russian nationality who have actually been deported since he assumed office; and how many of such persons were ordered for deportation by British Courts previous to the resumption of diplomatic relations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): When I came into office in June last I found outstanding some four cases of reputed Russians recommended by Courts for deportation. Between that date and the end of the year 21 similar cases were recommended, all prior to the resumption of diplomatic relations. The number of deportation orders actually made is two and the aliens concerned have left the country. In 11
cases investigation has definitely failed to establish Soviet Russian or any other alien nationality. In three cases I decided in view of all the circumstances not to order deportation. Investigation is proceeding in the remaining cases, which include a number in which the sentences of imprisonment passed by the Courts have not yet expired.

Mr. ALBERY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether those two deportations have taken place since we resumed diplomatic relations with Russia?

Mr. CLNES: Yes.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: Is it not a fact that these men or women are maintained at the expense of this country?

Mr. CLYNES: Some of them being in prison, they must necessarily be maintained at our expense.

Mr. THORNE: Are any of the rich aliens being exported?

Commander OLIVER LOCKER-LAMP-SON: Is there any other country which will take them?

Rear - Admiral BEAMISH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the date when these two men were deported, and can he say whether he can hold out any hopes that the nationality of the others he mentioned will, in fact, be established?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not give an answer without notice.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: But with regard to the prospect of identification?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not say without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

TRAINING CENTRES.

Mr. GRANVILLE GIBSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that admission to training centres is limited almost entirely to depressed mining areas, she will consider an extension of the scheme to enable persons in other areas to have an opportunity of receiving such training in order to assist those men who by the accident of residence outside the mining areas are deprived of the benefits of the scheme?

Miss BONDFIELD: One of the objects of the centres at which men are trained
for other employment in this country is to assist in finding an opening for the marked surplus of labour in the depressed mining areas, and men from such areas must continue for the present to have a definite preference, but the facilities are by no means entirely confined to them. At a recent date, out of 3,596 men at these centres, 1,453 came from areas other than those scheduled as depressed mining areas. There is no corresponding restriction as regards training for overseas.

Mr. GIBSON: Will the right hon. Lady give favourable consideration to a considerable extension of the system of training centres, in order to enable those who have been out of work for a long period, and who by the accident of residence are excluded from the scheme, to take advantage of those opportunities of training?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am giving my closest consideration to those areas that are becoming depressed areas.

Sir ALFRED LAW: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour the location of training centres now established in the country, the capital sums expended on equipment, etc., the annual charges, and the number of trainees, men and women, respectively, on 31st January, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply to this question is somewhat long, I will, with the hon. Members permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL RFPORT.

Following is the reply:

Apart from the provision made for training juveniles, training centres established in the country and administered or financially assisted by the Ministry of Labour are as follow:

1. Men.—A. For employment in this country:

Government Training Centres—Birmingham, Dudley, Wallsend, Bristol, Glasgow, Park Royal, Slough, Watford.

Transfer Instructional Centres—Blackpool, Carshalton, Fermyn Woods, Poole, Presteign.

B. For employment overseas:

Overseas Training Centres—Claydon,* Brandon,* Cranwich, High Lodge, West Tofts, Carstairs. *

* Include a limited number of training places for employment in this country.

2. Women:

Home Training Centres—Annfield Plain, Bishop Auckland, Blaydon, Blyth, Stockton, Gateshead, Jarrow, Leeds, Newcastle, Sheffield, South Shields, Sunderland, Durham, Liverpool, Manchester, Wigan, Workington, Cardiff, Pontypridd, Hengoed, Ystrad, Mountain Ash, Aberdare, Pontypool, Maesteg, Abertillery, Swansea, Hamilton, Cowdenbeath, Glasgow, Chatham, Dover, Bristol, Leamington.

Overseas Hostels—Portobello Road, London; Newcastle, Millersneuk, Lenzie; Cardiff.

The capital sums expended on equipment, etc., amount in all to approximately £393,000, and the annual training charges to approximately £610,000.

The number of trainees in training on 31st January, 1930, was as follows:


(1) Men:


Government Training Centres
2,912


Transfer Instruction Centres
892


Overseas Training Centres
868


(2) Women:


Home Training Centres
1,135


Overseas Hostels
60

BUILDING TRADES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed in the building industry at the last convenient date; and the number of unemployed at the same date last year?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 27th January, 1930, there were 149,403 insured persons classified as belonging to the building industry recorded as unemployed in Great Britain, as compared with 159,219 at 21st January, 1929.

Sir K. WOOD: Is the right hon. Lady aware that later figures were mentioned last week in another place by the Government spokesman?

Miss BONDFIELD: I was under the impression that these were the latest figures.

Sir K. WOOD: The right hon. Lady realises, of course, how serious this matter is. How does she account for it?

Mr. McKINLAY: Is it not a fact that the building industry is overloaded with
employés owing to the late Government breaking an agreement entered into in 1924?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that that matter has been discussed more than once.

BENEFIT AND DOMICILIARY RELIEF.

Mr. SINKINSON: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour the total amount of money paid for unemployment relief for the year 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: During 1929 approximately £44,400,000 was paid to claimants for unemployment benefit. In addition about £6,000,000 was paid as domiciliary relief to able-bodied unemployed persons.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of male and female cotton operatives in the spinning and weaving sections who were registered as unemployed at the latest convenient date?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply consists of a Table of figures, I will circulate a statement, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Lady say if there is a larger number of unemployed in the cotton industry to-day than ever before under similar circumstances?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall have to have notice of that question.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: Will the right hon. Lady Dost in the smoking room—

Lieut. - Commander KENW0RTHY: The tea-room.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: —in the tea-room, a diagram, which I know exists, showing the position of the unemployment figure as between different trades and in different towns?

Miss BONDFIELD: Certainly; there is such a diagram in existence.

Mr. HACKING: If the right hon. Lady finds that what I say is correct, will she impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the necessity of instituting a policy of Safeguarding?

Following is the statement:

MEN and WOMEN classified as belonging to the COTTON INDUSTRY on the Registers of Employment Exchanges in the 57 principal cotton trade centres at 27th January, 1930.


Department.
Wholly unemployed.
Temporarily stopped.
Totals.


Men.
Women.
Total.
Men.
Women.
Total.


Card and Blowing Room
915
5,352
6,267
1,299
6,876
8,175
14,442


Spinning
5,267
4,396
9,663
8,458
6,901
15,359
25,022


Beaming, Winding and Warping.
942
4,301
5,243
2,101
11,464
13,565
18,808


Weaving
2,831
9,247
12,078
3,167
10,140
13,307
25,385


Other processes
644
200
844
389
331
720
1,564


Total
10,599
23,496
34,095
15,414
35,712
51,126
85,221

TRANSFER OF LABOUR.

Mr. HACKING: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the general effect upon the local unemployment figures in the districts to which migration has taken place on account of the working of the system of industrial transference?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of men transferred from the depressed areas is regulated by the absorptive capacity of the receiving districts. The general effect of transference on the figures of unemployment in those districts is therefore negligible.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Did not the right hon. Lady say that this effect was not negligible a little while ago? When did she discover that it was negligible?

Mr. HACKING: Were the fears of the Government when they were in opposition groundless?

INSURANCE (RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she intends to make reciprocal arrangements for unemployment insurance with other countries on lines similar to those recently made with Switzerland?

Miss BONDFIELD: I shall be quite happy to make a similar arrangement with any other country which is in the same position as Switzerland to make such an arrangement and desires to do do.

Sir A. POWNALL: Has the right hon. Lady thought of the possibility of making such arrangements with Germany,
where they have an unemployment insurance scheme not entirely dissimilar from ours?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that it is perhaps not sufficiently understood what is the arrangement. The arrangement is that these nationals are treated equally with ours if they are resident, and can qualify otherwise under the same conditions.

EXCHANGES.

Sir A. POWNALL: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour which are the 13 Employment Exchanges which have been authorised and completed since May, 1929?

Miss BONDFIELD: The 13 Employment Exchanges completed and occupied since May, 1929, are as follow:

Basford.
Morriston.
Workington.
Kingston-on-Thames.
Barnsley.
Todmorden.
Walham Green.
Stamford.
Failsworth.
Clapham Junction (Battersea).
Pontypool.
Mansfield.
Runcorn.
The decision to erect these new premises was in every case taken before May, 1929, but the rate of progress in building has been substantially accelerated since that date.

Sir A. POWNALL: What steps is the right hon. Lady taking with regard to opening Employment Exchanges in those
towns where unemployment is so rife owing to the action of the present Government with regard to Safeguarding?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: What are the Exchanges to which the right hon. Lady refers, which were both initiated and completed under the present Government's regime?

Miss BONDFIELD: I think that was a misunderstanding. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that I said nothing of the kind.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I am in the memory of some hon. Members on this side that the right hon. Lady used the word "initiated."

Miss BONDFIELD: No, the questioner, I think, intended to use the word "initiated." I said that they had been opened since the Government came into office.

Mr. KELLY: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour the salary paid to branch managers who are appointed to areas which have no Employment Exchange; whether these branch managers are responsible for engaging their staffs; and, if so, are they compelled to pay wages at the same standard as that which operates in the case of those directly employed by the Ministry of Labour?

Miss BONDFIELD: The fixed remuneration of branch managers ranges from £20 per annum plus Cost-of-Living bonus for a normal volume of work of four hours per week, to £200 per annum plus bonus for a normal volume of work of 40 hours per week. In addition, special allowances are paid for work in excess of the normal. Branch managers are responsible for providing any staff necessary for the performance of Ministry of Labour work, and it is stipulated that the remuneration and conditions of service of staff so employed shall be not less favourable than those given by good employers in the district.

Mr. KELLY: Has the right hon. Lady any returns showing what are the rates paid to those people who are employed in this way?

Miss BONDFIELD: I must have notice of that question.

SHIPWRIGHTS AND BOILEEMAKERS.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is now in a position to give any information with regard to the average length of the spells of employment obtained by shipwrights and boilermakers?

Miss BONDFIELD: I regret that I am not yet in a position to give any information on this point.

Mr. WHITE: Shall I put another question down, or will the right hon. Lady send me the information?

Miss BONDFIELD: The difficulty is that there is only one point at which I can make the necessary inquiries, and I am having that done.

INSURANCE FUND (OVERDRAFT).

Mr. G. WHITE: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour the present rate of interest charged on the overdraft of the Unemployment Insurance Fund?

Miss BONDFIELD: The average rate of interest is a little under 5 per cent.

Mr. WHITE: Having regard to the conditions of the money market, does the right hon. Lady consider that an equitable rate?

Miss BONDFIELD: I would refer that question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

JUVENILES.

Mr. KELLY: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of advisory committees in connection with Employment Exchanges for the purpose of placing juveniles in employment; and whether reports of their work are presented each year?

Miss BONDFIELD: The number of advisory committees for juvenile employment at present operating in connection with the Employment Exchanges is 174. Each of these Committees presents annually a report to the Minister. The majority of the reports for the year 1929 have already been received, and in accordance with the usual practice a summary of the reports will be published.

Mr. KELLY: When is the report likely to be presented?

Miss BONDFIELD: I cannot say within a week.

Mr. McSHANE: Is the right hon. Lady satisfied that most of these advisory committees serve no useful purpose?

Miss BONDFIELD: Most emphatically, I regard them as very important.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME OFFICE (WOMEN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS).

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Home Secretary whether there are any women now employed on the administrative staff of the Home Office; and can he state at what intervals do the examinations take place for the recruitment of these positions?

Mr. CLYNES: There is one woman assistant principal of the administrative grade employed in the Home Office. The examinations for posts of this grade in the Civil Service are held annually in the summer of each year.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE.

LONDON WOMEN POLICE (UNIFORM).

Mr. LEACH: 16.
asked the Home Secretary if he will, in the interests of law and art, consider making an alteration in the present uniform of the London women police?

Mr. CLYNES: I would refer to the reply I gave on the 13th February, to which I have nothing to add at present.

ROBBERY (COMPENSATION CLAIM).

Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: 17.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet been able to discover any means by which compensation can be given to Mrs. Sylvia Machin, of Ilford, who was robbed by a Metropolitan police constable when on duty on his beat, in view of the fact that Mrs. Sylvia Machin is not pecuniarily able to sue the police?

Mr. CLYNES: I have looked further into this matter with every desire to take a sympathetic view. According to my information Mrs. Machin stated, after the arrest of the constable, that she had lost two rolls of shirting valued by her at £7. One roll, valued at £1 5s. Id., was identified as her property and returned to her. Therefore the loss that she suffered as a direct consequence of the constable's action was limited, according to her own
statement, to £5 14s. 11d. It is true that she said she had lost a contract, but it appears that that was due to her having failed to insure against burglary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—as required by the terms of the contract. She has now insured and recovered the contract. I am further advised that she clearly has no legal claim upon the police inasmuch as it is a well established principle of law that no employer, whether public or private, has any liability for a criminal act of his servant, committed outside the scope of the servant's authority and indeed in violation of his authority. To depart from this principle would be an innovation, the effect of which might extend far beyond the Metropolitan Police, and I can only say that I have been unable to find in the circumstances of the case anything that would justify me in proposing such a departure.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as a result of the burglary, this poor woman lost her employment for many months, and, therefore, that her loss has been much more than that of the few yards of cloth referred to? She has lost £5 per week in wages for many weeks. In view of the fact that compensation has been given by the Metropolitan Police for wrongful arrest, cannot compensation be given where a policeman in uniform and on his beat robs a poor woman like this?

Mr. CLYNES: I have said, in answer to previous questions, that in no like case is there any precedent—[HON. MEMBERS: "Then make one!"] I understand that hon. Members believe that very serious loss has been suffered by this woman. I have no evidence of it. If hon. Members can furnish me with any proof of any such loss, I will try to find a way of affording some recompense.

Sir G. HAMILTON: May I point out that I sent a long letter from Mrs. Machin to the right hon. Gentleman? I have no doubt he kept a copy of it, but he kindly returned it to me. In this letter, the whole of her loss is set out, together with the facts that she has several children, that she is separated from her husband, is entirely responsible for the maintenance of her children and herself, has lost her house because she cannot pay the rent, and is now living with a brother-in-law.

Mr. CLYNES: The Home Office cannot accept statements in a letter as proof. But I shall be glad to discuss the terms of that letter with my hon. Friend.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Did not the right hon. Gentleman say on a previous occasion that he was anxious to meet the views of the House? Is he still prepared to do so?

Mr. CLYNES: I said on a former occasion as well as to-day that if any evidence is afforded of anything approaching a condition of ruin I will make further endeavours to afford some recompense for her loss.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Home Secretary has said that he will do everything he can.

ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 22.
asked the Home Secretary when the Royal Irish Constabulary Force Fund is wound up, what it is proposed to do with the surplus remaining?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. The process of winding up the fund cannot be completed for many years to come and it will be for the Government of the day to decide how any balance of assets should be dealt with; but I must point out that when in 1891 the fund was in danger of becoming insolvent, it received an Exchequer Grant of £150,000, on the express condition that any balance remaining to the credit of the fund after all its liabilities had been discharged should be returned to the Treasury.

BRITISH AND FOREIGN POLICE (RECIPROCAL FACILITIES).

Mr. ALBERY: 24.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to provide foreign police officers with facilities at Scotland Yard; and if similar facilities are being offered abroad to English police officers?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 28.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is proposed to accommodate at Scotland Yard detectives from the police headquarters of Paris and Berlin; whether officials of the Criminal Investigation Department at Scotland Yard are to be installed at the headquarters of the Paris
and Berlin police; and, if so, whether he can state the purpose of these developments?

Mr. CLYNES: It has for many years been the practice to afford to accredited foreign police officers facilities to acquaint themselves with the procedure and organisation of the Metropolitan Police. Similarly, officers of the Metropolitan Force who have visited foreign forces from time to time have always been given every possible assistance. There has been no recent change of practice or procedure in these respects, and none is contemplated.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May we assume that the same facilities will be given to Russian police as to German and French police?

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES.

Mr. ALBERY: 25.
asked the Home Secretary if this country is participating in an international police organisation; and if he can give the House some information on this subject?

Mr. CLYNES: Apart from international conferences—of a purely deliberative character—which representatives of the police have attended from time to time, I know of nothing that could be described as an international police organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — REFUGEES' PASSPORT CERTIFICATES (NANSEN STAMP).

Mrs. HAMILTON: 18.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the advantages accruing from the use of the Nansen stamp system in connection with the passport certificate issued to refugees; and whether he will take early steps to introduce it in this country?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. It was indicated at the last Assembly of the League of Nations that His Majesty's Government were prepared to adopt the scheme, and the method of its application in this country is now under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — STREET ACCIDENTS, LONDON.

Mr. MATTERS: 19.
asked the Home Secretary if he can give the comparative figures for the quarters ended 30th September and 31st December, 1929, showing
the numbers of fatal accidents in the Metropolitan police area in which the following classes of motor vehicles were involved; motor cycles, private cars, trade, commercial, and general passenger vehicles?

NUMBER OF PERSONS KILLED.


Metropolitan Police District and City of London.


Mechanically Propelled Vehicles.
Quarter ended 30th September, 1929.
Quarter ended 31st December, 1929.


M.P.D.
City of London.
Total.
M.P.D.
City of London.
Total.


Motor cycles
…
…
71
—
71
55
—
55


Private cars
…
…
88
—
88
145
—
145


Trade, commercial, etc.
…
…
112
3
115
131
3
134


Cabs
…
…
12
—
12
12
1
13


Omnibuses and tramcars
…
…
32
—
32
47
3*
50*





315
3
318
390
7*
397*


* Includes 1injured in the quarter ended 31st March, 1929.

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY SERVICE (ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES).

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES - BRISE: 20.
asked the Home Secretary if he will consider making an amendment to the Juries Acts, 1825 to 1922, extending the exemptions from jury service so as to include elected representatives serving on borough, county, or district councils?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 23.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider the possibility of freeing from jury service elected representatives of the people serving as borough, county, or district councillors?

Mr. CLYNES: I do not see my way to propose legislation for extending the exemptions from jury service.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a very strong feeling on the part of those who serve on local authorities that some recompense should be given to them in this respect for the time and service which they give to local government?

Mr. STRAUSS: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us some reason why this exemption should not be afforded to these people?

Mr. CLYNES: The reply can best be given in tabular form, and with the hon. Member's permission I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

Mr. CLYNES: At present, they are exempt from serving upon county juries. I can only say that at present I am unable to propose any other relief.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEATHS (STARVATION AND EXPOSURE).

Mr. HACKING: 21.
asked the Home Secretary the number of verdicts of death from want, exposure, etc., returned during the years 1927, 1928, and 1929?

Mr. CLYNES: 100 in 1927; 95 in 1928. The figures for 1929 are not yet available. The numbers stated may include some deaths not due to destitution and some where destitution, exposure or self-neglect aggravated disease.

Oral Answers to Questions — EASTER (STABILISATION).

Sir JOHN WITHERS: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether any opinions have been officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body, within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Easter Act, 1928; and, if so, what are those opinions?

Mr. CLYNES: I will circulate a statement on the subject, so far as I am in a position to do so, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

SUMMARY OF REPLIES.

England and Wales.

Church of England:

Both convocations agree to the date proposed in the Act in the event of general ecclesiastical concurrence.

Church of Wales:

No objection, subject to general agreement among the churches.

Governing Body, Wesleyan Methodists:

No objection, subject to general agreement among the churches.

Primitive Methodist Church, General Committee:

Heartily approve.

Baptist Union, General Secretary:

No objection.

Congregational Union, Assembly:

No objection.

United Methodists Church, Connexional Committee:

No objection.

Scotland.

(Communicated by the Secretary of State for Scotland.)

Church of Scotland:

Express no opinion.

United Free Church:

Express no opinion.

Reformed Presbyterian Church:

Express no opinion.

Free Presbyterian Church:

Express no opinion.

Episcopal Church:

Approve.

Congregationalists:

Approve.

Baptists:

Approve.

Northern Ireland.

(Communicated by the Cabinet Secretary.)

Church of Ireland:

Agree if the other great religious bodies in the kingdom do so.

Methodists:

Approve.

Presbyterians:

Approve.

Baptists:

No objection.

COMMUNIST PUBLICATION.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 29.
asked the Home Secretary whether it is upon his instructions that copies of Inprecorr are not delivered; and, if so, for what reason this publication of the Communist International is detained?

Mr. CLYNES: Copies of this periodical have for some time past been stopped under the authority of a Secretary of State's Warrant to the Postmaster-General on the ground that its circulation in this country would be contrary to the public interest.

INDUSTRIAL DISEASES (SILICOSIS).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 30.
asked the Home Secretary if, following the recent Report on the conditions of silicosis, further legislation is being prepared; and if he can give any information as to when the Bill will be presented to the House?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes, Sir. A Bill is being prepared and while I cannot pledge the Government I hope that it may be presented to Parliament before the end of the present month.

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 31.
asked the Home Secretary if he can give particulars of the committee which has been appointed by the Medical Research Council further to investigate pulmonary silicosis, and other pulmonary conditions arising from industrial processes; and if he can indicate the scope of the inquiry?

Mr. CLYNES: The appointment of this Committee and the scope of their inquiry were announced in the Press of the 22nd February. The Committee will advise on the further investigation of pulmonary silicosis and of other pulmonary conditions associated with the inhalation of dust3 arising from industrial processes. It will be their duty to survey the whole field and to advise the council on new lines of inquiry that may be profitably pursued, and they will assist in the supervision of such investigations as it may be decided to initiate or support. The work will be directed particularly towards obtaining, in co-operation with the Factory Department, more accurate knowledge of the causes and diagnosis of silicosis and of other industrial pulmonary disorders.

WORKERS' INTERNATIONAL RELIEF (DOCUMENT).

Mr. SMITHERS: 33.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to a document, dated 28th February, 1930, and circulated by the Workers' International Relief, British section; and, in view of the fact that statements in this document are calculated to lead to a breach of the peace, will he consider if he can institute proceedings?

Mr. CLYNES: I have seen a copy of the document to which I think the hon. Member refers. As at present advised I do not think that the case is one which calls for action with a view to proceedings.

Mr. SMITHERS: Have the activities of this organisation anything to do with the number of extra police in the streets to-day?

Mr. CLYNES: Demonstrations of the kind referred to are sometimes made more successful by those measures.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

ARCOS LIMITED (DISCHARGED EMPLOYES).

Mr. SMITHERS: 34.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that a large number of employés of Arcos Limited, the Russian trade delegation in London, had been on 17th February discharged from their employment; whether any of these discharged employés are Russian subjects; and, if so, whether they have returned to Russia or are now upon the British labour market?

Mr. CLYNES: The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative. I am causing inquiry to he made in regard to the last part.

RELIGIOUS SITUATION (INTERCESSORY PRAYERS).

Mr. MATTERS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the controversy regarding intercessory services on the religious situation in Russia, the Government will arrange for the cancellation of all church parades on Sunday, 16th March, as part of the routine compulsory for the naval, military, and air forces, and issue instructions that all ranks of the forces shall be at liberty to attend,
or refrain from attending, church services which may otherwise be available to them?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I am happy to say that it looks as though the matter can be satisfactorily settled on the lines indicated in the answer which I gave on Tuesday last in reply to a Private Notice question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. MATTERS: May I ask how the Prime Minister's pledge, given in this House, of full spiritual liberty, can be fulfilled if officers and men are compelled to attend parades and services at which even chaplains to the Forces have announced their intention to insist on making their protest?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall have to observe what happens. I am very unwilling, in connection with this subject, to raise the whole question of compulsory parades, which will be raised if the matter is not satisfactorily settled on this occasion.

Mr. THURTLE: Is not the Prime Minister aware that, if he allows the present position to obtain, men will be compelled against their will to go and listen to these intercessory prayers, and does he consider that to be a means of ensuring full spiritual liberty?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: May I ask, quite irrespective of this particular issue of an intercessory service, what the Labour Government are doing, anyway, to compel soldiers and sailors to go to church whether they want to go or not?

Sir A. KNOX: Is there a single man in His Majesty's Services that would object to these intercessory prayers?

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity of raising this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

STAFFING.

Miss LEE: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education what steps are being taken to ensure that a sufficient number of additional teachers are being trained in preparation for the raising of the school-leaving age?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Charles Trevelyan): I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies which I gave on the 6th and 13th February in answer to similar questions by the hon. Members for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) and East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall), of which I am sending her copies.

Miss LEE: Do I understand that no additional means are being used?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: That is the nature of my reply.

REORGANISATION SCHEMES.

Mr. BEAUMONT: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received schemes of reorganisation from Liverpool, Manchester, and Newcastle; and whether these schemes cover the school population under the control of these authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The programme which has been received from the Liverpool Authority deals only with the year 1930–31 and therefore contains only an instalment of the Authority's general scheme of reorganisation. I have not yet received the Manchester programme but expect it very shortly. The programme submitted by the Newcastle Authority provides for a scheme of reorganisation covering the whole school population under their control.

MARRIED WOMEN TEACHERS.

Mrs. HAMILTON: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state the number of local education authorities which permit women to continue teaching after marriage; and the total number of married women teachers now in employment by local education authorities?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I regret that I have no information showing how many local education authorities have regulations permitting women teachers to continue in employment after marriage. On the 31st March, 1929, there were 12,280 married women employed as teachers by local education authorities.

MAINTENANCE ALLOWANCES.

Sir K. WOOD: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Education, whether he can now make a further statement upon the main principles upon which need will
be assessed in deciding the eligibility for maintenance of children under the Bill for raising the school-leaving age?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not yet prepared to make any further statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate when he will be able to make a statement on this important matter having regard to the general public interest taken in regard to it?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not sure when the committee meet again, and I do not quite know what they will do.

SCHOOL-LEAVING AGE.

Dr. DAVIES: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has received from any local education authorities representations that the poverty of their district will prevent them from carrying out the necessary requirements for the compulsory raising of the school age in 1931; and, if so, what action he proposes to take in such cases?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have not received any representations to this effect.

Mr. COCKS: 47.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has any information as to the school-leaving age in Turkey?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am informed that in Turkey attendance at school is compulsory until at least the age of 12.

Mr. COCKS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the school-leaving age in Turkey has been raised to 16?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not aware of that fact.

Mr. COCKS: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ascertain whether my information is correct?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I will make further inquiries. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants to use it in argument.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Is that the English age or the Turkish age?

SENIOR BOYS (MEN TEACHERS).

Dr. DAVIES: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Education, as there are three times as many women teachers in public elementary schools in England and Wales as men teachers, if he will
take steps to see that boys over 14 years of age when the school age is raised compulsorily shall be taught by men teachers only?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have no doubt that local authorities and managers will be generally anxious to have a large number of men teachers for the older boys in the schools.

Dr. DAVIES: The question to which I want an answer is whether the right hon. Gentleman will see that these boys are always taught by men teachers. I do not think that this question should be left to the action of the local authorities, and it is a matter which ought to be dealt with by the Board of Education.

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The system under which we are working is that the local authorities use their own judgment in the matter.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is the President of the Board of Education going to take any special steps to see that men teachers are provided?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I stated quite recently that the extra teachers who are being trained in the colleges this year have a larger proportion of men than usual.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to teach the youth of this country by women?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly not. I have already pointed out that the discretion lies with the local education authority.

Miss RATHBONE: Is it not the policy of this country to teach the children through the most efficient teachers who are available?

DEPRESSED DISTRICTS, LANCASHIRE.

Dr. DAVIES: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether, seeing that the Lancashire cotton industry has been suffering for eight years from depression resulting in the closing of several factories and much unemployment, he will consider the desirability of offering special financial consideration to such districts on account of the increased expenditure necessitated by the compulsory raising of the school age in 1931?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I do not think that any special arrangements are necessary. The formula under which grant is paid in respect of elementary education already operates so as to secure that the Exchequer bears an increased proportion of the cost in the poorer areas.

Dr. DAVIES: Is the President of the Board of Education not aware that there are districts in Lancashire in such serious financial difficulties that they are exercising their minds about the increase which is being put upon them by the proposals of the Government; and what are the Government going to do to help them out of those financial difficulties?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: As a matter of fact a large proportion of the increased cost is provided by the State.

Earl WINTERTON: In view of the general interest which is taken in this matter on both sides of the House, does the right hon. Gentleman propose, before a Second Beading is given to this Bill, to issue a White Paper explaining more explicitly than has been done hitherto the principles on which the Bill will proceed?

Mr. COVE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated in a report in the "Manchester Guardian" that the textile workers have unanimously called for the raising of the school age in Lancashire?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think the information which has been asked for will be found in the Financial Memorandum on the Bill.

SCHOOL NAMES.

Mr. G. WHITE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will, where possible, prescribe and elsewhere recommend that primary and other schools be no longed named after the street or road in which they are situated?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No doubt there is often little imagination used in the naming of schools, as of new streets, in our country. But I must leave matters of this kind to the discretion of the local education authorities.

Mr. WHITE: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer that there would be no objection on the part of the Board if the change indicated in the question were made?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: Certainly. My personal preference would be for more interesting names.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Is it not the case that this change is taking place?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I think that some of them are thinking about it.

NEW SCHOOL, DONCASTER (COLLAPSE).

Mr. TOM SMITH: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he has completed his inquiries with regard to the collapse of the school in course of erection on the Intake site, Doncaster; and, if so, whether he can state the result of the inquiry?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: In accordance with the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on the 28th November last, I asked the Doncaster Local Education Authority for a report from an independent expert on the stability of the new structure of the Intake School. The authority have now furnished me with a report by a firm of consulting engineers, who state that the necessary repairs and further strengthening measures have been completed to their satisfaction, and that the stability of the school, so far as the structural sufficiency of the steelwork is concerned, is now entirely beyond question.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is it not the case that this disaster happened owing to the use of foreign steel?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: No, Sir; the whole of the steel was British.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE BILL.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has received a resolution from the Workers' Educational Association, south-western district, representing over 60 branches and groups, and over 2,500 adult students in Devon and Cornwall, urging the Government to proceed immediately with the Education (School Attendance) Bill on the grounds that its passing will contribute considerably to the social, economic and intellectual well-being of the nation; and whether he can state when it is proposed to introduce this legislation?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I have received the resolution referred to. In answer to the second part of the question, I cannot
add anything to the answer given by the Prime Minister last week. The Bill has been introduced and is printed.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS (BUILDING GRANTS).

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Education when he proposes to make an announcement with regard to the provision of building grants for non-provided schools?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I cannot at the moment say when I shall be able to make a statement on this subject.

Sir V. WARRENDER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this delay in making a statement, in view of the increasing burdens on those responsible for these schools, is placing them in a very difficult position indeed?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The question is extraordinarily difficult, and it is no use trying to hurry it.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Will my right hon. Friend be in a position to make a statement on this matter before his Bill dealing with the school-leaving age has a Second Reading?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: I am not in a position to make any statement about it at all at present.

Mr. OLDFIELD: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, if he makes no statement, hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House who have given pledges in regard to that matter will be placed in a very difficult position?

SCHOOL BUILDINGS (DEFECTS).

Mr. EDE: 48.
asked the President of the Board of Education if there have been any changes since June last in the instruction given to inspectors of schools as to their duties with respect to structural and sanitary defects in school buildings and premises; and if they have a duty to report such defects when they observe them?

Sir C. TREVELYAN: The answer to the first part of the question is "No," and to the second part "Yes."

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

SOUTHWARK.

Mr. DAY: 49.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has any recent
statistics and can state the present number of condemned houses in the borough of Southwark, and the most recent figures of where more than three persons occupy one room in this borough?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): I am informed by the town clerk that there are 635 condemned houses in the borough. As regards the last part of the question, I have no information more recent than that which was published in the report of the census of 1921.

Mr. DAY: Has my right hon. Friend any information as to how it is intended to re-house these people?

Mr. GREENWOOD: My hon. Friend must wait.

Mr. THORNE: Are the landlords receiving any rent for these houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Presumably they are.

Mr. THORNE: They ought to be locked up.

SPECIFICATIONS (BRITISH MATERIALS).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 50.
asked the Minister of Health the methods adopted by local authorities in order to bring into practice the recommendations of the Minister's Circular Letter 1960 and, in particular, whether local authorities are impressing upon their technical officers and consultants the necessity of specifications being framed in accordance with British practice and British materials?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no information of the detailed measures taken by local authorities in this matter, but I have every reason to think that they are acting on the recommendations.

Mr. SMITH: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the fact that the wording of some specifications follows so closely the description of goods manufactured abroad that, in competing with those goods, home manufacturers have been very greatly prejudiced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have no definite information on that point.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in
order to assist local authorities and to lessen the holding up of slum-clearance and town-planning and improvement schemes, he will circulate the terms of the proposed slum-clearance Bill for their information; and whether the general form of the Bill, including the financial provisions, is now settled?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not think that the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is a practicable one; I hope to be able to introduce the Bill at an early date.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the case of several Bills, including, presumably, the Transport Bill, the text has been circulated for the information of those concerned, and will he reconsider the matter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am now in negotiation with the local authorities.

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the Bill be introduced before Christmas—or rather, before Easter?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I hope before both.

Mr. THOMAS LEWIS: 54.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Southampton Borough Council has decided to postpone for six months proceeding with five slum-clearance schemes pending forthcoming legislation, and that decision was a result of an interview by representatives of the council with officials at the Ministry of Health who had expressed surprise at such schemes being proceeded with at the present time owing to the possibility of legislation; and when such legislation is likely to be introduced?

Mr. GREENWOOD: At a recent interview with an officer of my Department, the Town Clerk of Southampton was informed that, on account of a decision of the Courts, local authorities were holding up schemes until further legislation had been passed. I have not been informed what decision the town council have reached. I hope to be able to introduce legislation at an early date.

WESTMINSTER (FLATS).

Mr. CHARLETON: 58.
asked the Minister of Health whether before sanctioning the scheme of the Westminster City
Council to erect 814 flats, he will see if the proposal to instal coal fires in each flat for cooking and heating purposes can be reconsidered?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The proposal of this council to erect flats on the Grosvenor Estate and in Ebury Bridge Road, is not one that required any sanction on my part. I will, however, communicate my hon. Friend's suggestion to the council.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman not have some regard to the health of the neighbourhood rather than have 814 open fires added in such flats?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL INSURANCE (COMMITTEE).

Sir K. WOOD: 51.
asked the Minister of Health if the Cabinet Committee who are considering proposals in connection with social insurance have yet arrived at any conclusions?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on the same subject on 23rd January.

Sir K. WOOD: What is this Committee doing? What is the reason? Is it the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is stopping this Committee from proceeding with its labours?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his Front Bench position, is acting with all the irresponsibility of a back bencher.

Earl WINTERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether one side of ministerial responsibility is not to give a plain answer to a plain question?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

CONDENSED SKIMMED MILK.

Brigadier - General CLIFTON BROWN: 52.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that tins sold as condensed skimmed milk are not milk at all and are unfit for children, and in some countries are not allowed to be sold as milk, he will take steps to have the designation on these tins changed from milk to milk products?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The composition of the article in question seems to be sufficiently indicated by the present designation, and I do not propose to take any steps to have it altered.

INFLUENZA.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 63.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state how the number of cases of influenza among the insured population during the months of January and February of this year compare with the number reported for the corresponding period of 1929; and whether he can give the figures approximately?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The information asked for by the hon. Member is not available and could only be obtained by calling for a special return from every one of the 7,000 Approved Societies and branches administering National Health Insurance.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: Has there been a decrease or an increase generally?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member will put down a question, I will try to give him an answer.

DIPHTHERIA.

Mr. FREEMAN: 72.
asked the Minister of Health if he will state how many school children have been immunised and how many inoculated with the intention of preventing diphtheria during 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. FREEMAN: May we not have statistics in order that we may see whether diphtheria is prevented as a result of inoculation?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It is very difficult to ask local authorities to submit information.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: How many children have been saved from diphtheria?

RADIUM.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 59.
asked the Minister of Health whether any progress has been made in obtaining supplies of radium independently of the present foreign monopoly, and especially from mines and workings within the Empire; and what steps are being taken to this end?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The primary objective is to increase the amount of radium at present available for use in this country, and the Radium Trust has thought it best, with that object, to have recourse to the existing sources of supply, including such supply as is available in this country.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am quite aware of that fact; but is my right hon. Friend aware that the Committee recommended that an effort should be made to get an independent supply in the Empire?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand, though I cannot be responsible for it, that the Committee is considering the question now.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiries as to the Cornish supply and the possibility of increasing it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that is under consideration at the moment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 60.
asked the Minister of Health at what price radium is now being purchased for medical and surgical purposes in the public welfare; and if he is satisfied that the price charged is a fair one?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the purchase of radium by the Radium Trust. The Trust will in due course present their annual report and will doubtless deal in it with the question of their purchases.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this report be made public?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Yes, Sir.

MENTAL CASES.

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 64.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has received any communications from local authorities recommending that mental defectives on leaving institutions should be offered certain advice in regard to the non-desirability of their marriage or, alternatively, that they should, previous to marriage, consent to undergo surgical treatment with a view to the prevention of further propagation of their species; and whether he is prepared to legislate in this direction?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to a similar question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Abingdon Division (Major Glyn) on 19th February.

RECONSTITUTED MILK.

Mr. EVERARD: 66.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that at a recent food and cookery exhibition at Olympia, London, reconstituted milk was supplied to members of the public, and that a firm of manufacturers of emulsifying machines have advertised the claim that milk and cream made on their stand was supplied to all the demonstration and competition theatres at that exhibition; and whether, in view of the extended sale of emulsifying machines, he will take prompt steps to remind all food and drugs authorities that the sale of reconstituted milk is illegal?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have received information to the effect of the first part of the question. The food and drugs authorities are already aware of the statutory provision prohibiting the sale of reconstituted milk as milk, and on the information at present before me I do not think it necessary to address any special communication to them on the subject.

Mr. EVERARD: In view of the facts stated in the first part of the question, surely it is clear that some information ought to be given.

ARTIFICIAL CREAM.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 71.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has considered the copies sent to him of the advertisements of emulsifying machines appearing in a journal catering for purveyors of light refreshments; whether he is aware that these advertisements indicate that considerable quantities of artificial cream are being supplied by the catering trade in tea, coffee, cakes, etc., without any information being given to consumers that they are not getting genuine cream; and whether, in view of the harm which is being done to the interests of consumers and the milk industry by this practice, he will introduce
legislation to require all users of emulsifying machines to disclose the fact that they are supplying the artificial product?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I do not find that these advertisements have been received in my Department. The Artificial Cream Act prohibits the sale of artificial cream as cream and provides for the registration of premises where it is manufactured or sold. I cannot undertake to introduce further legislation on the subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW.

RELIEF.

Mr. S1NKINSON: 56.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of money paid for outdoor relief in Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The total cost of outdoor Poor Law relief in England and Wales during the financial year ended 31st March, 1929, amounted to £15,499,129, including £13,470,845 out-relief given in money and kind. With regard to Scotland, my hon. Friend should address a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As regards Northern Ireland, this service is administered by the Government of Northern Ireland, and I have no information on the subject.

Mr. MacLAREN: Can my right hon. Friend give the figures at some future date with regard to the amount paid in Northern Ireland?

Viscountess ASTOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether these figures have been increased since the Government took office?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I could not say without notice.

Mr. SINKINSON: 57.
asked the Minister of Health the total amount of money paid for indoor relief in Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the year ending 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The total cost of indoor Poor Law relief in England and Wales during the financial year ended 31st March, 1929, amounted to £23,406,692, including £6,230,043 in respect of the maintenance of lunatics in county and borough asylums. With regard to Scotland, my hon. Friend should address a
question to the Secretary of State for Scotland. As regards Northern Ireland, this service is administered by the Government of Northern Ireland and I have not information on the subject.

ST. PANCRAS INSTITUTION (VACCINATION).

Mr. CARTER: 65.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that on 20th February over 400 pauper inmates of the St. Pancras workhouse were vaccinated without being asked for their consent; that the majority of these people believed that the reason for stripping to the waist was for examination purposes only and had no idea that it was for vaccination until they were actually vaccinated; that the few men who successfully resisted this attempt to vaccinate them have had their leave stopped; that no objection was raised to the men taking their discharge but only to their having leave; that Mr. L. L. Ross left the house on 22nd February and returned at 7 p.m. with a new order of admission and was told at the receiving ward that he must either agree to be vaccinated or get outside; that he refused to be vaccinated and demanded an order from the master in writing that vaccination was compulsory before he would agree to leave; that after an interview with the assistant master Boss was admitted 50 minutes after his arrival; that two men were refused admission on 21st February at 5.30 p.m. after presenting their orders; and whether he will point out to the St. Pancras workhouse authorities that they have no right to make vaccination a condition of admission to the workhouse?

Mr. GREENWOOD: On 20th February a male inmate was found to have been suffering from small-pox for three or four days and, since he had been in contact freely with other inmates, it was considered advisable to examine medically all the men in the institution. Opportunity was taken of advising the men to be vaccinated but it was made clear that any who objected were at liberty to refuse. A number of men in fact refused, but no leave has been stopped on this account. As regards Mr. Ross, the facts are substantially as stated. The delay in re-admitting him was due to a misunderstanding, which was rectified as soon as it was brought to the notice of the assistant master, and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the difficulty. There is no record of two men
being refused admission on 21st February. The duty of a Poor Law authority to relieve destitution would not be affected by a refusal of the applicant to be vaccinated, but in certain circumstances it might be quite proper that relief should not be given in a particular institution.

TEST WORK.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: 67.
asked the Minister of Health if he has now considered the Returns which have been made as the result of the special inquiry he set up into test work in November last; and when will he be in a position to make a statement?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make a statement.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why he persistently refuses to make a statement upon a subject on which he was very voluble when in opposition?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer is quite simple—because I am not an automatic machine.

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: If a question is put down next week, will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give an answer?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Certainly I will give an answer, but I will not say that it will be satisfactory.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Are we to understand that it really requires four months?

Mr. ALBERY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that continual repetition of the same answer will lead the House to think that he is an automatic machine?

Oral Answers to Questions — APPROVED SOCIETIES (RESERVE FUNDS).

Dr. MORRIS-JONES: 62.
asked the Minister of Health whether he can state the total amount of reserve funds possessed by approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts as at 31st December, 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

The total amount of funds of approved societies under the National Health Insurance Acts in Great Britain at the latest date for which particulars are available, namely, 31st December, 1928, was in round figures as follows:



£


(i) Sums standing to the credit of approved societies in the National Health Insurance Funds, including amounts in the Investment Account
59,000,000


(ii) Sums invested by or on behalf of approved societies
55,000,000


(iii) Cash in hands of approved societies
1,500,000


Total
£115,500,000

Apart from the foregoing, there are also certain book credits called reserve values, created under those provisions of the original National Insurance Act, and subsequent enactments, which are now embodied in Section 66 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924. These book credits will in due course be converted into cash by the operation of the sinking fund set up for the purpose. (See Section 67 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924.) The amount of reserve values credited to approved societies in Great Britain and outstanding at 31st December, 1928, was in round figures £47,500,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT.

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 70.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, although employed contributors under the National Health and Pensions Insurance Acts who are under 65 years of age are entitled to pay contributions during periods of sickness or unemployment, this privilege is by Article 9 of the Contributory Pensions (Collection of Contributions for Persons over 65) Regulations, 1928, denied to contributors over 65; whether he realises that many persons who entered insurance after the age of 60 will thus be unable to complete the qualifying period of five years for contributory pensions and will receive no benefit in return for contri-
butions paid; and whether he will reconsider Article 9 above mentioned in the light of Sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Widows,' Orphans', and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1925?

Mr. GREENWOOD: As regards the first and third parts of the question, the provisions which prevent a person over 65 from paying contributions when not employed are contained, not merely in the Regulations quoted by the hon. Member, but in the Contributory Pensions Act itself. As regards the second part, the hon. Member is under a misapprehension, for a man who is insured on reaching the age of 65 remains insured for life, so that the fact that he cannot pay contributions in respect of any period after he has attained 65 can in no way prevent the fulfilment of the condition that he must have been continuously insured for five years.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, under present conditions, a man who is almost 65 may be compelled to pay contributions right up to the age of 70 and have no chance of ever getting anything in return for them?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is misinformed. I shall be glad to discuss the matter with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (AUDITORS' REPORTS).

Dr. MORGAN: 74.
asked the Minister of Health how many auditors are engaged on the work of inspecting and auditing the books and financial statements of the borough councils of London; whether he is aware that many of the auditors' reports on Metropolitan borough councils are unduly delayed; whether an examination once started is completed or whether the work is done piecemeal; and whether the visits for such audits are paid in regular rotation or on a particular basis of periodicity?

Mr. GREENWOOD: There is one district auditor, six assistant district auditors and a staff of clerks engaged on the work of audit in London. This includes the London County Council, the Metropolitan Water Board, the Metropolitan Asylums Board and the boards of guardians as well as the borough councils.
I am not aware of any complaint as to undue delay in completing these audits. My hon. Friend will appreciate that they cannot all be taken at once, and that adjournments may from time to time be necessary pending the settlement of a question that may have arisen. These audits are not taken in any definite order of rotation, and I desire to assure my hon. Friend that everything possible is done to meet the wishes of the authorities concerned, and to secure as early a completion of audit as is practicable.

Mr. DAY: Is it intended to increase the number in the near future?

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. T. LEWIS: 75.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to giving relief to those persons who are only entitled to an old age pension at 70, subject to the means inquiry as provided under the Old Age Pensions Acts, 1908 to 1924, he will introduce the necessary legislation to amend paragraph (1) of the Old Age Pensions Act, 1924, by increasing the amount which may be deducted from unearned income from £39 to £52 per annum?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of Health to the hon. Member for North Newcastle on 21st November last on the subject of existing insurance and pensions legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL PREFERENCE.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: 76.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, within the last five years, any fresh proposals have been brought to the notice of his Department by any parts of the British Empire in favour of an extension of imperial preference, either on existing articles or on new ones?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The answer is in the affirmative.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: What action is the right hon. Gentleman taking?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The representations were received during the lifetime of the late Government, and I am not aware that any action was taken by them.

Sir W. DAVISON: It is enough for the right hon. Gentleman to be responsible for the sins of his own Government. Will he say what action this Government has taken in regard to these representations?

Mr. SNOWDEN: These representations have not been received by the present Government. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there were about five in the previous five years, one of which was for a preference on plumbago.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING AND IMPORT DUTIES.

Major the Marquess of TITCH-FIELD: 77.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that uneasiness is being engendered in the ball- and roller-bearing trade owing to the uncertainty as to the future of Safeguarding; that many workers are being thrown out of the trade owing to this uncertainty: and what steps he will take to improve matters?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: I have no information on the allegations contained m this question.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that by his inaction in this matter he has thrown out of work 300 of my constituents?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am not aware of the alleged facts stated by the hon. Member but I know that there is a widespread conspiracy to attribute unemployment, wholly due to other causes, to my refusal to anticipate the Budget statement.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: May I send the right hon. Gentleman details of this, and will he come down to my constituency and see for himself?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the McKenna Duties affect not only the motor car industry but many subsidiary industries?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I am perfectly well aware of that, and I am equally well aware of the very injurious effect that these duties have had, not only upon the motor industry, but upon many allied industries. And may I say, in reply to
the supplementary question of the Noble Lord, that if I came down to his constituency he might live to regret it.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Does the light hon. Gentleman adhere to his statement that his delay in giving any decision either one way or the other has had no detrimental effect whatever upon industry?

Mr. SNOWDEN: There will be an opportunity of dealing with this matter fully next week and nobody will welcome that opportunity more than I shall.

Marquess of TITCHFIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept the invitation to come and speak in my constituency?

Mr. SPEAKER: This matter does not arise out of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — STATE PRINTING WORKS.

Mr. BOWERMAN: 79.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the net trading profit accruing to the Treasury from the last completed year's working of the State printing establishments at Harrow and Pocock Street?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The net trading profit for the year ended 31st March, 1929, was £80,117 18s. 4d. in the case of the Harrow printing establishment and £6,608 13s. 5d. in the case of the Pocock Street printing establishment.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Can the hon. Gentleman say what is the capital employed?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BEEF (GOVERNMENT PURCHASES).

Mr. G. GIBSON: 80.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if, seeing that he has sent a letter to 50,000 housewives in the West London district urging them to buy British beef on the grounds that Empire-buying begins at home and the movement in favour of home-produced beef is growing rapidly, he will make similar
recommendations to all Government Departments which purchase beef, particularly the Army and Navy?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Noel Buxton): I am afraid I can add nothing to previous statements on this subject.

Mr. GIBSON: In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman considered that this matter was of such importance that he circularised 50,000 women in London pressing them to buy British beef, is it not fair to demand that at the same time he should make representations to Government Departments which ought to set an example to the rest of the country?

Mr. BUXTON: The question on the Paper is quite a limited one, and I have answered it. The question as to whether recommendations have been made has already been answered more than once, and I can only refer the hon. Member to previous replies.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have had the question asked so often that I am getting rather tired of hearing the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANIMAL AND BIRD SANCTUARIES (CROWN LANDS).

Mr. FREEMAN: 81.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether all Crown lands are reserved as animal and bird sanctuaries; and, if not, will he consider what steps can be taken to secure that this shall be effective?

Mr. N. BUXTON: With the exception of Windsor Great Park, where birds and other animals are protected, almost all the Crown lands in rural areas are let for agricultural holdings, and I regret that it is impossible to adopt the suggestion put forward.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if hunting is permitted on any of these Crown lands?

Mr. BUXTON: There are no abnormal regulations in regard to hunting.

Mr. FREEMAN: Is hunting prevented on Crown lands, and will the right hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of preventing hunting on any Crown lands?

Mr. BUXTON: The hon. Member had better put down that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN COUNTIES WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (DISPUTE).

Mr. LEACH: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether she is in a position to say when the Report of the Court of Inquiry in connection with the matters in dispute regarding wages in the Northern Counties Wool Textile Industry will be available for the information of the House.

Miss BONDFIELD: I have now received this Report and copies will be available in the Vote Office at 5 o'clock this afternoon. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my personal appreciation of the meticulous care given by the Chairman to this very technical matter.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister what the business will be for next week, and how late he pro poses that the House should sit to-night?

The PRIME MINISTER: Monday, Supply (Second Allotted Day), Civil Estimates and Estimates for the Revenue Departments, 1930—Vote on Account—Report stage. It is understood that the question of Unemployment will be discussed.
Tuesday, Coal Mines Bill, Committee.
Wednesday, Army and Air Force Supplementary Estimates in Committee, with the Report stage of Supplementary Estimates taken on 6th March. If there is time, further stages of the Land Drainage (Scotland) Bill.
Thursday, Discussion of the Censure Motion on the Paper in the names of the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill); Report Stage of the Army and Air Force Supplementary Estimates.
On any day, should time permit, other Orders may be taken.
With regard to the business to-day, as I indicated last Monday, we must for administrative reasons dispose of our outstanding financial business without
delay, and I should propose to take what is on the Paper during the sitting tonight.

Mr. BALDWIN: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has examined the Votes himself, but there are under the Post Office Vote a number of questions of very great importance, and it is the same in regard to the Overseas Trade Vote, and I think it would be quite impossible to get a full discussion of these subjects in which I suggest is an unreasonable time.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that a good deal depends upon what Ruling is given. I am not sure myself—and I am not expressing any opinion—what the Chairman of Committees may deem desirable and necessary to rule. Within the strict limit of the Supplementary Votes I do not think that there are very many questions which can be raised.

Commander Sir BOLTON EYRES MONSELL: I should like to raise a point of Order, which I would not have raised if the right hon. Gentleman had not intended to take the whole of these Supplementary Estimates. I should like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that there is a discrepancy between these Votes as they appear in the Blue Paper and the White Paper. Class G, Vote 4, as it appears on the White Paper, was down on the Blue Paper as Class 6, Vote 14. I should like to ask whether the Blue Paper is not the authentic paper of Parliament. In that ease, this Vote cannot be taken to-day.

The PRIME MINISTER: Before you give your decision, Mr. Speaker, may I explain that it is purely a printer's error?

As soon as we discovered it, the attention of the other parties were drawn to it. Of course, if a strict interpretation of the technical Rule is to be taken, undoubtedly, the Blue Paper is the authoritative one. That would mean that the Vote would have to be put down again and added to the next day's financial business.

Mr. SPEAKER: Technically speaking, of course, notice has to be given of a Vote; otherwise, it cannot be taken. The proper Parliamentary Paper is the Blue Paper. I understand that it is not a printer's error, but that it was an error in the original Paper that was handed in at the Table. That was the mistake. If the House insists on abiding strictly by the technical Rule, the Vote cannot be taken to-day, but the House may think it advisable, under the circumstances, not to insist upon a strict reading of the Rule.

Mr. E. BROWN: On the White Paper, my hon. Friend the Member for Holland-with-Boston (Mr. Blindell) has a Motion down, and, as he has received the Blue Paper, it will be scarcely fair to him to take the Vote in his absence. He has had his Motion down for several weeks.

Mr. SPEAKER: If there is anything of that kind involved, it will be best to abide by the technical Rule and not take the Vote to-day.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings in Committee of Supply and on Report of Supply [3rd March] be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 271; Noes, 159.

Division No. 214.]
AYES.
[3.53 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Cocks, Frederick Seymour.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Bowen, J. W.
Cove, William G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Daggar, George


Alpass, J. H.
Brockway, A. Fenner
Dallas, George


Ammon, Charles George
Bromfield, William
Dalton, Hugh


Angell, Norman
Brothers, M.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Arnott, John
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Day, Harry


Attlee, Clement Richard
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Ayles, Walter
Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Dukes, C.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Burgess, F. G.
Duncan, Charles


Barnes, Alfred John
Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Ede, James Chuter


Batey, Joseph
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Edmunds, J. E.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cameron, A. G.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Bellamy, Albert
Cape, Thomas
Egan, W. H.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Elmley, Viscount


Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Charleton, H. C.
England, Colonel A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Chater, Daniel
Foot, Isaac


Benson, G.
Clarke, J. S.
Freeman, Peter


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Cluse, W. S.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lowth, Thomas
Sandham, E.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William
Sawyer, G. F.


Gibbins, Joseph
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Scott, James


Gibson, H. M. (Lance, Mossley)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Scrymgeour, E.


Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Scurr, John


Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.
Sexton, James


Gossling, A. G.
McEntee, V. L.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Granville, E.
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.


Gray, Milner
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shield, George William


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
McShane, John James
Shields, Dr. Drummond


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shillaker, J. F.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Mansfield, W.
Shinwell, E.


Groves, Thomas E.
March, S.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Marcus, M.
Simmons, C. J.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Markham, S. F.
Sinkinson, George


Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)
Marley, J.
Sitch, Charles H.


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
Marshall, Fred
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Mathers, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey), Rotherhithe)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaten)


Hardie, George D.
Maxton, James
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Haycock, A. W.
Middleton, G.
Smith, Tom (Pontetract)


Hayday, Arthur
Millar, J. D.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hayes, John Henry
Milner, J.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Montague, Frederick
Sorensen, R.


Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Herriotts, J.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Hoffman, P. C.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Strauss, G. R.


Hollins, A.
Mort, D. L.
Sullivan, J.


Hopkin, Daniel
Moses, J. J. H.
Sutton, J. E.


Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Horrabin, J. F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfo k, S. W.)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Nathan, Major H. L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Naylor, T. E.
Thurtle, Ernest


Isaacs, George
Noel Baker, P. J.
Tillett, Ben


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Oldfield, J. R.
Tinker, John Joseph


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Toole, Joseph


Johnston, Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Tout, W. J.


Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Townend, A. E.


Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Palin, John Henry
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Paling, Wilfrid
Turner, B.


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Vaughan, D. J.


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Perry, S. F.
Viant, S. P.


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Walker, J.


Kelly, W. T.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Kennedy, Thomas
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Wallhead, Richard C.


Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Pole, Major D. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Kinley, J.
Potts, John S.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Knight, Holford
Price, M. P.
Wellock, Wilfred


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Pybus, Percy John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Lang, Gordon
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
West, F. R.


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Rathbone, Eleanor
White, H. G.


Lawrence, Susan
Raynes, W. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Blrm, Ladywood)


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Richards, R.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Lawson, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield. Attercliffe)


Leach, W.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lee, Frank (Derby. N. E.)
Ritson, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Wise, E. F.


Lees, J.
Romerll, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Rowson, Guy



Logan, David Gilbert
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Longbottom, A. W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Longden, F.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Whiteley.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sanders, W. S.



NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.


Albery, Irving James
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Boyce, H. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Beaumont, M. W.
Bracken, B.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd., Hexham)


Astor, Viscountess
Berry, Sir George
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)


Atholl, Duchess of
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Buckingham, Sir H.


Atkinson, C.
Bird, Ernest Roy
Bullock, Captain Malcolm


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Boothby, R. J. G.
Burton, Colonel H. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Butler, R. A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hartington, Marquess of
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Auexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chapman, Sir S.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Colman, N. C. D.
Hurd, Percy A.
Savery, S. S.


Colville, Major D. J.
Iveagh, Countess of
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Simms, Major-General J.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Smithers, Waldron


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Cunlilffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Eden, Captain Anthony
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Train, J.


Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Fison, F. G. Clavering
Muirhead, A. J.
Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Wells, Sydney R.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gower, Sir Robert
O'Neill, Sir H.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Grace, John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Womersley, W. J.


Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Ramsbotham, H.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Major Sir George Hennessy and




Sir Frederick Thomson.


Question put, and agreed to.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer further powers upon the United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution; and for other purposes." [United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to empower the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of the city of Portsmouth to acquire lands compulsorily and to establish thereon an aerodrome undertaking: to confer powers upon them with respect to their tramways and electricity undertakings; and for other purposes." [Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords].]

United Kingdom Temperance and General Provident Institution Bill [Lords],

Portsmouth Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. DUNNICO in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS VI.

FISHERY BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £3,050, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Fishery Board for Scotland, including Expenses of Marine Superintendence, and Grant-in-Aid of Piers or Quays, also for Loans to Herring Fishermen.

4.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): When I visited the harbours used by the herring fishery industry in Scotland some six months ago, I had placed before me many difficulties that that industry was then under. The main difficulties to which my attention was drawn was the amount of debt that rested upon many harbours, the fact that many of them were silting up and were badly in need of dredging, the fact that these fishing communities could not undertake the cost of the dredging that was necessary, and the fact that many of the harbours, because of War conditions and conditions that followed the War, were in need of a considerable amount of re-conditioning and repairs if the industry was to have the necessary facilities for making the most of its opportunities.
In the course of the Debate which was initiated on 20th November last by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), I outlined certain proposals that had been under consideration—proposals which the Government had in view for assisting the herring fishing industry in Scotland in the difficult times through which it is passing. The proposals which I then outlined, and which seemed to be generally welcomed by hon. Members, included the provision of an additional dredger, and the pro-
vision of funds to enable free dredging services to be given wherever necessary. Of course, those harbour authorities who were able to pay for the use of the dredgers, either in full or in part, were expected to pay for them, but those who were unable to pay were to have dredging services free. The proposals also included assistance for works of re-conditioning and special repairs at fishery harbours, and the restoration of the Grant-in-aid of piers and quays to the full. As hon. Members representing fishing constituencies know, this Grant-in-aid for some years past had been reduced to £100, and it was restored to the original figure of £3,000, the annual amount allowed by the Fisheries Act, 1824.
In order that there should be as little delay as possible in making arrangements for carrying out the dredging and re-conditioning works, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that Parliament should be asked to pass this Supplementary Estimate authorising these services. As regards the services I have already named, taking dredging first, the Fishery Board have already, with my approval, arranged for the purchase of a suitable vessel, and it is now in process of being refitted, and will be ready for service, I hope, in the course of a month or so. The cost of purchase and refitting; is estimated at £10,600, the figure shown, in the Estimate. This grab dredger wilt be very useful for work for which the existing bucket dredger is unsuitable, and I feel that the Committee will approve of what has been done in this direction.
I come to the question of the £20,000 grant which I intimated on 20th November would be used for dredging and reconditioning services rather than for its original purpose of reducing harbour dues. I think when I made that explanation it was generally approved, particularly by those representing the industry itself. The annual cost of maintaining and working the two dredgers, which is the first charge on that sum of; £20,000, is estimated at £7,500. In the current year a sum of £700 is being provided to meet the cost of the dredging service in supplement of the provision on the main Vote for 1929. The sum of £2,300 shown in the Estimate for reconditioning was the most that the Board could see any likelihood of spending before 31st March. It was impossible that a programme could be formulated
and works carried through to any great extent before that date. This does not mean that the harbours will lose the balance of the £20,000, which might have been available in the current year since the Chancellor of the Exchequer was good enough to agree that what the Board could not see their way to doing before 31st March could be done during the next financial year. Therefore, in the special circumstances the House will be asked to vote to the Board in the main Estimate for the coming year an amount which, with the provision I am now asking, will make a total of £40,000 for the two years.
Already the Fishery Board are considering proposals for the application of considerable sums of money towards special reconditioning work at a number of harbours. Approval has already been given for grants-in-aid of works at Fraserburgh, Macduff, Girvan, and Lochboisdale, aggregating £17,500. Some of the proposals for assistance under this head are associated with improvement schemes which are being dealt with by the Development Commissioners from the Development Fund, which are outside the scope of the present Estimate. From this point of view it is a convenience—and this is the last thing I need say on this question—that the money for dredging and reconditioning services should come from the same source—namely, the Development Commissioners, but I must make it clear that this £20,000 is independent of and additional to the special fund of £500,000 which is to be placed at the disposal of the Commissioners for development purposes. I now come to grants-in-aid of piers and quays. As I have already stated, this sum is to be raised from £100, a figure at which it has stood for some time, to £3,000. There is not much for me to add. Although grants for piers and quays, which amount at the present time to £17,000, are subject to certain restrictions they have been found to serve a useful purpose in assisting fishery harbours and quays and the restoration of this annual grant-in-aid should be of considerable value. Then there is a small sum provided for in the Estimate to cover the cost for the current year of the additional staff which it has been found necessary to appoint in order to cope with the great increase of work which has
fallen on the Board in connection with harbour schemes and other fishery matters, which are at the present time engaging the attention of the Government.
The other matter for which the Estimate makes provision is the Loans Scheme. As my Scottish colleagues are aware it was instituted on behalf of those fishermen who lost their nets and gear in the great storm off the East Anglian coast on the 11th November last. Let me recall the circumstances. As soon as the news of the losses suffered reached me I got into touch with the Lord Provosts of the Cities in Scotland and they responded with enthusiasm to the suggestion that a relief fund should be organised. I should be out of order if I dealt with that aspect of the matter in detail, but it became apparent at a very early date that the amount which could be raised by the generosity of the public would not of itself be sufficient to enable all those fishermen who suffered losses to replace their nets and gear. Again the Chancellor of the Exchequer was ready, in the special circumstances of the case, to help me, and he agreed to a proposal to supplement the relief fund by a loans scheme on easy terms, and to make a total provision of £50,000 for this purpose. It will be impossible for the Fishery Board to make payments by way of loans before the end of the present financial year, but in order that they may have authority to do so between the 31st March and the date when the 1930 Estimate is approved, it is necessary to obtain the authority of Parliament to the service, and, accordingly, the Supplementary Estimate provides for a token Vote of £10. The whole sum of £50,000 will appear in the Board's Estimate for the coming year. I hope that the assistance which is being offered to those who suffered losses in the exceptional disaster which occurred on Armistice Day will meet the situation.
I want to go over some of the work we have been able to do with a view of helping the herring fishing industry to overcome its difficulties, and I propose to deal with the assistance which we have been able to give for schemes of repair and renewal to the fishing harbours, to which I have already referred. Already, in answer to applications which have been put forward we have been able to agree to a development scheme for the follow-
ing harbours and for the following amounts. At Fraserburgh the repairs are to cost £3,410, and the Development Fund has made a grant of £3,410. The reconstruction of the quay wall at Fraserburgh will cost £9,000, and the Development Fund has approved a grant of £9,000. The deepening of the harbour entrance is to cost £9,600, and a grant of £9,600 has been made. The extension of the slipway is to cost £2,380 and the Development Fund has made a grant of £2,380. At Whitehills, the improvements are to cost £12,500, and the Development Fund has made a grant of £6,750. At Banff the repairs will cost £1,250, and a grant of £800 has been made. At Anstruther the improvements are to cost £16,000, and the Commissioners have made a grant of £10,500. At Whitehall, Orkney, the improvements are estimated to cost £45,000, and the Development Commissioners have agreed to make a grant of £15,000. At Port Seton the improvements and repairs will cost £5,660, and a grant has been made of £3,000. The protection of the slipway at Macduff will cost £4,000, and the Board have agreed to a grant of £4,000. At Girvan the repairs to the harbour will cost £3,540, and the Commissioners have agreed to a grant of £3,540.
In addition to these schemes which have been agreed to a large number of applications for schemes of repair and improvement are under consideration, and include the following places—Peterhead, Buckie, St. Monance, Pittenweem, Boddam, Cairnbulg, Fraserburgh, Macduff, Portknockie, Findochty, Wick and Girvan. The total cost involved in these schemes is no less than £275,000. I must mention the question of remission of debt, which amounts to £126,000. I hope I have explained sufficiently clearly the total amount of assistance granted to these services, but it can be summarised in a few words. Under the head of harbour grants and loans approved, the total amount is £67,980; dredger services, £11,300, loans to fishermen, £50,000, and remission of harbour debts £126,000, making a total of £255,280. In addition, as a result of the efforts made during the last few months by the Lord Provosts, a fund amounting to £26,250 was raised, and in addition the cost of the schemes under consideration amounts to £275,000.
When I visited these harbours six months ago I had many difficulties put
before me and many suggestions made for overcoming those difficulties. I was asked to pledge the Government that a certain number of the suggestions would be carried out. Obviously I could not pledge the Government, but when I discussed the difficulties with representatives of the industry I readily agreed to put their suggestions before my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I think the Committee will agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very generous to the fishing industry. I see one of my hon. Friends opposite shaking his head. I am quite willing to compare what has been done for the fishing industry by the present Government in the course of the last few months, with what has been done by any previous Government within any period of nine months. I should have no difficulty, I think, in proving that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has enabled me to make very generous provision for the herring fishing industry. That by no means relieves the industry of all its difficulties, and by no means entirely relieves me or whoever may stand here in my place of the responsibility for doing all that is yet possible to assist the very worthy body of men in this important industry to make the best of that industry. I am by no means ashamed of what I have been able to do up to now, and I shall continue my efforts in future to enable the industry to overcome its difficulties and to give the fishermen every facility for pursuing their avocation successfully.

Major MCKENZIE WOOD: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Those of us who are interested in the harbours in Scotland will be glad of the opportunity of discussing a question which is of great importance and which we do not get many opportunities of discussing. The Secretary of State took some credit to himself for what he has done. Let me say, by way of preface, that nothing that we shall say will be directed against the right hon. Gentleman personally. There is no doubt that he has taken a very great personal interest in this matter, and has succeeded in doing something which will compare very favourably with what has been done by any of his predecessors. I would remind him, however, not to stress too strongly a point which he has made on previous occasions regarding
what he has done compared with the achievements of previous Governments. I hope he will not forget that most of the money which he takes credit to himself for handing over to these authorities has been provided out of a fund which was set up some years ago, principally at the behest and as a result of the work of the Leader of the Liberal party. The money has all come from the Development Fund.
That is not the only thing to which we would lay claim. There is no doubt that all the harbours both in Scotland and England have to thank the Development Fund more than anything else for assistance, and that they would not be in the position that they are in to-day but for the setting up of that fund. We are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for going up to Scotland and himself seeing the position of these harbours. He has told us that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has been very generous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has certainly given something, but I am certain that if the Chancellor would do what the Secretary of State has done, that is, go and see these harbours for himself, he would be prepared to give much more liberally than he has done so far. Indeed, the question of the debts upon these harbours and of their further development is a very much larger question than the present Government have yet realised, and they must understand that these sums of which the right hon. Gentleman has talked with so much satisfaction are not nearly enough. It is a great mistake for the Government to hand out money by hundreds of thousands, and even by millions, for the re-conditioning of roads or the making of new roads, and yet forget that harbours are in practically the same position of need and are entitled, even more than the roads, to assistance in the development of the country.
With regard to the question of harbours and debts, the right hon. Gentleman urged the harbour authorities to put forward schemes for re-conditioning and improvement. They did so very hurriedly, and imagined that their claims and applications would be dealt with in time to enable these harbour works to be started by now. This is the time of the year when unemployment is greatest in these towns. But very few of the ap-
placations have been dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned one or two to-day. He has mentioned those same harbours on several occasions. They have become a sort of stage army which crosses the Floor of this House every few weeks, led by the right hon. Gentleman, in proof of what he has done. We would like him to get some new works, not the old ones. I hope that he will expedite the handling of these applications so that the work at the harbours may continue. I am glad that at long last he has told us about Macduff. There was a case in which he took great risks by allowing the application to remain undealt with for so long. At any time the works might have been driven into the sea. We are very lucky to have escaped so long.
I would like to say a few words about the new dredger which the right hon. Gentleman is providing. Everyone, I am sure, realises that this new dredger will be of great assistance to the harbours, which have all been calling for something of the kind. How is the dredger to be let out? The right hon. Gentleman knows that all the harbours, in the north of Scotland particularly, are very eager to get the services of this new dredger, and that there will be applications for it from all over the country How is the right hon. Gentleman going to decide the order of precedence in those applications? He said that some of the harbours were to be asked to pay for the services of the dredger and that others that were in a bad pecuniary state were to get it free of charge. Are the needy ones to get it first, or the others? Is this dredger to be handed over to one harbour and to work there for a month or two while all the others wait? Is a job to be finished at one harbour before the dredger is taken to another? I can quite imagine that there will be very difficult questions of priority to be decided.
In his speech the right bon. Gentleman mentioned that the special grant to the Fishery Board had been raised from £100 to the old figure of £3,000. Every harbour authority will be very grateful to him for that. But I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will impress upon his colleagues that the £3,000 is not nearly enough for the work which has to be done, and that in the near future it will have to be materially increased.
There is a special reference to small harbours in this Vote. I do not know exactly what constitutes a small harbour, but I know instances of very small harbours which are in a very difficult position, and I invite the Government's attention to the specially hard cases of some of them. I have, for instance, in my constituency, a small harbour the fishermen of which had £650 of hard cash in the bank to be expended on improvements. But they cannot use it because there is no corporate body which owns the harbour.
It is a very small community and the men are not in a position, without assistance, to form themselves into a corporate body to manage the harbour; they are not a burgh or anything of that kind. The county council has not the power to take over and administer the harbour. It has been suggested by the Fishery Board that a certain kind of co-operative society should be formed to manage it. What I suggest is that the Fishery Board might be encouraged and empowered to take the initiative in putting these harbours on a proper footing, so that there will be someone able to deal with them, and able to use the £650 in this particular case for the purpose for which it was collected.
I come now to the question which, to me, is the most important one raised by this Estimate and that is the question of the relief fund. [HON. MEMBERS: "Loan!"] I refer to the relief fund, both loan and grant. It is of interest to me because in the great storm to which the Secretary of State referred, more than half the total damage was sustained by constituents of mine. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that that storm simply increased a problem which existed before, and to which attention had already been drawn particularly by us on these benches. I was a member of the committee which was set up some time ago, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Duncan Millar) to look into many of these questions and we pointed out, in our report, that the position of the herring fishing industry made it absolutely necessary that something should be done by way of providing credits for these herring fishermen to help them to get the gear necessary for their work.
To understand the position of these fishermen it is necessary to realise the method of organisation under which they work. Some hon. Members of the Committee may not be aware that the earnings of these herring drifters are divided under a scheme by which one-third goes to the crew, one-third to the owners of the nets, and one-third to the owner or owners of the boat. Any fisherman who merely gives his work as a member of the crew, and has no interest in the nets or the boat, gets a very poor share in lean seasons, and, since the War, the seasons have been very lean indeed. In other times, young men entering the industry have usually started as deck hands without any interest in the nets or the boats and have worked themselves up in the industry until they got a share in the nets or the boats. As a result of bad times there has been a gap and it has become difficult for men who have entered the industry without capital, to graduate, if I may put it in that way, to the position of having a share in the nets or the boats.
The herring fishing industry differs from the trawler fishing industry in that it is really a co-operative concern. In the main the boats are owned by the fishermen themselves and our fear is that, if something is not done, the herring fishing industry will become a capitalist industry in the same sense as the trawling industry. Since the War many of the fishermen who have had bad times have lost their nets and are now in the position of deck hands. Some people say, and there appears to be some reason for it, that the proportion of the earnings given to the owners of nets is too large. It seems so on the face of it, but there are considerations which have to be taken into account—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am trying to find what bearing the hon. and gallant Member's remarks have on the question of compensation.

Major WOOD: This matter has a very direct bearing indeed on the question of compensation as I hope to show, and it is impossible for me to make my point clear without explaining these points. I was about to explain that there is a risk of losing nets and, as a result of that risk, the very large proportion of one third of the earnings is allowed to
the owners of nets. Even allowing for that consideration I feel that the share is very large, and it is highly desirable, if men are to get their proper share of the earnings of the boat, that they should have, within their power, the possibility of owning some of the nets. That is the connection between my remarks and the subject of this Vote. The Vote only provides for those men who lost their nets on one particular night. There are many people in the fishing industry in Scotland who are in a much worse position than the men who lost their nets that night. We raised this matter before the disaster in November and asked that something should be done for these men.
This Vote provides assistance for men who have been lucky enough, if I may put it in that way, to lose their nets on one particular night, but it leaves out all the others. It provides nothing for them although they are really in a worse position than those who lost their nets on 11th November. Those who lost their nets on 11th November were the aristocracy of the herring fishing industry. The fact that they were able to go to East Anglia with nets means that they were the best-off men. Therefore the right hon. Gentleman presents an Estimate to give assistance to the best-off people in the industry but, as far as we know, he proposes that nothing at all should be done for the others—at the moment at any rate. I fear that if he helps only the best-off men in the industry it will be more than ever difficult in the future to help those others who lost their nets before the 11th November, or even since that date, and also those young men who, as the result of had seasons since the War, have little hope of getting properly launched in the industry. If they have not the possibility of taking a real part in the industry, I am afraid they will drift away from it altogether. Once they go it will be difficult to get them back, and, if we once let down this industry, it will be difficult to put it on its feet again.

Mr. SKELTON: May I ask the hon. and gallant Member what has actually happened to those unfortunate constituents whom he has mentioned since 11th November, because none of this money has been given to them?

Major WOOD: I do not wish to go very much into that matter. I have said that this is a time at which unemployment is greatest in these parts of the country. In the last few months there has been, as there always is at this time, a certain lull in the industry and the men are not doing very much. Some of them attempt cod net fishing, if the foreign trawlers allow them, and some of them go to the west coast. They have been there and have come home without much to show for their work.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston): On a point of Order. For the sake of clarity in this discussion, I should be glad to know whether we shall be allowed to discuss, later on, the special committee dealing with credit facilities which is at present sitting. If we are to be debarred from mentioning that matter later on, would it not be advisable that the hon. and gallant Member should confine his observations strictly to matters within the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The Secretary of State for Scotland in his opening remarks covered a very much wider field than that which is covered by the Estimate, and it is desirable, in the interests of the Committee and in the interests of the fishing industry, that a certain amount of latitude should be allowed.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Of course, if it is the desire of the Committee and the ruling of the Chair that the discussion should be so extended, neither my right hon. Friend nor I will offer the slightest objection, but the matter should be made perfectly clear at the outset. I only desire to be assured that the discussion will not be cramped at a later stage and that it is not broadening out now so as to include matters with which later on it may not be possible to deal.

Mr. McKINLAY: The Secretary of State was specific on the question of relief and confined it to those who suffered as a result of the storm on Armistice Day. If a discussion as wide as the Atlantic is to be permitted on the whole question of reimbursing men for nets which have been lost on all sorts of occasions, then we are in for a very long Debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not!"] My point is that the Secretary of State was specific in his statement that this
sum was in relation to the storm in November, and I suggest that it is outside the Supplementary Estimate to discuss the whole question.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I respectfully submit that as considerable latitude was given, no doubt very properly, to the Secretary of State as the spokesman of the Government, it is only right and fair that similar latitude should be given to the spokesmen of both sections of His Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. ADAMSON: In the course of my remarks I did not mention a word about credit facilities, nor did I go into any details about the Lord Provost's Fund. I confined myself to the matters in the Estimate.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: When the right hon. Gentleman was dealing with piers and harbours he gave us a long list of schemes under consideration which had no relevance whatever to this Estimate. Surely it is rather treating the Committee unfairly for the Under-Secretary, now that another topic is raised, to prevent us going a little wider in order to bring the whole thing into the picture.

Major ELLIOT: May I point out that this Estimate itself, under Subhead E.E., "Loans to Herring Fishermen," says:
The object of the token provision in this Estimate is to secure the approval of Parliament for the service.
That refers to the token Vote of £10, and I submit that it would be in order for any of my hon. Friends to move to reduce the Vote on the ground, not that they did not desire this service, but that they wished to show that this service should not be granted, but that another should be granted in its stead. I suggest it would be possible to propose that a service allowing loans only to those who lost their nets on one particular night should be replaced by a service allowing loans to those who lost their nets on other nights as well.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: Further to that point of Order. I would like to have a ruling now, so that we shall know where we are, as to whether the discussion is to be confined to one specific matter. I do not go so far as the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) and say
that these fishermen who lost their nets on the 11th November were lucky, but I want anyone who has lost their gear on any night, through storm or misadventure of any kind, to be considered.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is always difficult to pull up a Minister, but I must confess that I saw that he was asking for trouble. The right hon. Gentleman did go far outside the Supplementary Estimate on the question of harbours, but not on the question of compensation to fishermen who have lost their gear and nets. I was, therefore, anxious to find out what the bearing of the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) was. We cannot go outside the terms of this Estimate, but the Minister having made certain statements about harbours, I think I must allow some latitude. I want to be fair to the Committee, and without developing their arguments, I think it would be proper to ask why compensation should not be given to other fishermen than those specified.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Further to that point of Order. May I remind hon. Members who have complained—

Mr. BOOTHBY: We are not complaining.

Mr. SKELTON: It was your own colleague who complained.

Mr. ADAMSON: If the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton) will keep his temper, we will get on with the business better.

Mr. SKELTON: I hope it will not appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT that my temper has not been kept under control.

Mr. ADAMSON: Anyhow, Members were complaining, and all the appeals made across the Floor—and they were numerous—from Members who represent Scottish constituencies were in regard to the disaster on the 11th of November, but in putting this forward, I never went outside the 11th of November.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: Do we under stand from your Ruling, Mr. Dunnico, that the discussion can deal only with herring fishing and no other fishing, under this Fishery Board Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No; any question which is raised in this Estimate
can be discussed, but so far as loans to herring fishermen are concerned, they are confined to certain people who met with disaster on a certain date, and we cannot go outside that.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I point out that the right hon. Gentleman has been allowed, in regard to harbours, to give a list of things which he has done, but that his colleague objects to us putting forward things which he has not done?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman's good nature overcame his customary discretion.

Mr. McKINLAY: I thought the Ruling of the Chair indicated that as the Secretary of State had gone wide of the mark on harbours, he was willing to allow a little latitude.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hope the Committee will not abuse that permission.

Major WOOD: I do not think I have abused your Ruling in any way. The right hon. Gentleman made a long statement to justify what he had done for harbours, which are quite outside the limits of this Supplementary Estimate. We did not object. On the contrary, we were very glad to hear it. The Under-Secretary said something about whether we were going to be able to discuss credit facilities, but this Vote is to provide credit facilities for fishermen, and that is what I was discussing. My point is that there are other people more needing assistance than those whom the right hon. Gentleman proposes to assist by this Vote, and I hope he will keep them in mind, because we are afraid that the provision of assistance to one class may make it far more difficult than it would otherwise be for the other class, who have been waiting to see what the Government would do for them and who now fear that nothing at all is to be done.
I have some criticism to make of the manner in which these relief schemes were set up. Until after this storm, we never suggested that the Government were under any obligation to make a grant to these fishermen. I said it was impossible to make such a demand because other industries would expect the same, but when the right hon. Gentleman set up a relief fund in the way that he did, the position was entirely changed,
and it seems to me that it was quite right for us to ask that the right hon. Gentleman should commence by making a contribution to the fund himself, not in his personal capacity, of course, but as Secretary of State for Scotland. That is the case that we make against the Government in that matter. A great deal was said about it at the time, and it seems to me necessary that I should say that by way of justification of ourselves.
But after the fund was set up, the right hon. Gentleman did several things which I think it would have been better not to have done. For instance, he sent out a form in which he asked for applications both for loans and grants on the same form, and he explained afterwards that all that form did not apply to both loans and grants. He asked, for instance, that anyone filling up a form should state his bank balance, his debts, and the money that he has, and, of course, the fishermen at once fought shy of it.

Mr. McKINLAY: I must again rise to a point of Order. What part of this Supplementary Estimate has anything to do with the relief fund, which was voluntarily contributed by the public in Scotland?

Mr. E. BROWN: This token Vote is put down in advance of the actual grant of a sum to the loan fund, so that we may have an opportunity of debating the Government's action. Surely my hon. and gallant Friend is strictly in Order.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand that the hon. Member is dealing specifically with this token Vote at the moment.

Major WOOD: There are two funds. There is the relief fund and the loan fund; that is to say, the fishermen may apply for grants from either or from both.

Mr. McKINLAY: My point of Order is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has absolutely no right to discuss on this Estimate the question of grants from the relief fund. He is mixing up the two.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The hon. Member is confusing the whole issue. My hon. and gallant Friend is now dealing with the question of the loan fund, and not with the relief fund at all.

Mr. McKINLAY: I want to get an explanation from the hon. and gallant
Gentleman. He is mixing up grants from the loan fund and grants from the relief fund.

Major WOOD: If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I think he is confusing the issue. I am complaining that the two things were mixed up. Here is the form which was sent out by the right hon. Gentleman. It is headed, "Form of application for grant from Relief Fund and for loan from Government Loan Fund." When fishermen had these forms put before them, they found that they had to state their financial resources, and they had to give all the secrets of their bank balances, if they had any, their debts, and so on; and they objected. The right hon. Gentleman then sent out a notice to say that he did not want that particular part filled up by those who wanted only a relief fund grant. The result was that the administration of this fund was greatly delayed, and caused a great deal of confusion. That is surely a point which I am entitled to make, and it is quite relevant to the Debate.
Apart from that, on the question of the loan fund, the right hon. Gentleman invited applications for loans, and ho did not state at the time, and he has not stated yet, the terms upon which these loans were to be granted. It is most unreasonable to expect fishermen to fill up forms giving all the secrets of their financial position unless the terms upon which it is proposed to grant the loans are stated. No one would apply for a loan until he knew what the terms were. Under pressure in this House, the right hon. Gentleman said that the interest was to be 3 per cent., but beyond that, as far as I have seen, there has been nothing said.

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is stated in the circular issued broadcast from Edinburgh on 8th February that the rate of interest is to be 3 per cent., and that the loan is to be repayable in a period not exceeding three years.

Major WOOD: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I had not seen that last circular, and I tried to get it.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman might have the good sense to apologise.

Major WOOD: I certainly apologise to the right hon. Gentleman if I have made a mistake, but the point which I made is still a good one, because what the Under-Secretary has said means that after setting up this fund, he did not give the terms upon which he proposed to grant the loans until a fortnight before the applications ceased. That was not fair to the fishermen, and I am not surprised, therefore, that the applications for loans were fewer than were expected at one time.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: Was from the 8th February to 1st March a fortnight? The hon. Gentleman is wrong again.

Major WOOD: That is three weeks. I say, however, that that is not enough, and it is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman, when he launched his scheme, did not explain it in full, so that the fishermen might have full knowledge of it, and be able to make up their minds whether they would apply for assistance from it or not. Many of these fishermen are spread over the whole of the west of Scotland at the present time; they only come to land for a few days, and are out of touch in many cases with the salesmen on whom they depend for information. Three weeks is not a very long time for them. I am sorry that I have taken up so much time. [Interruption.]

Mr. J. BROWN: So are we.

Major WOOD: It has been very largely due to the interruptions, and I am surprised to hear that remark from the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown), because this question does not apply to his constituents at all.

Mr. BROWN: The hon. Member is mistaken; it does very much apply to my constituents.

Major WOOD: This fund is only for fishermen who lost nets in East Anglia on that particular night, and I should be very surprised if any of the hon. Gentlemen's constituents were in East Anglia at that time, so that it does not to any extent affect him at all. Therefore, I am surprised that he should object to my
taking up the time. We have tried very often to get an opportunity of discussing this matter and have been defeated partly by the right hon. Gentleman. I am bound to say that the money which is being provided now could have been used to much greater advantage. The Buckie Fishermen's Association sent to the right hon. Gentleman a letter in which they propounded a scheme by which they thought the money could be used.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is taking advantage of my Ruling. We must keep to the question whether this money should be devoted for this particular purpose. If we were to discuss alternative schemes, we should be here all day.

Major WOOD: I was pointing out that a definite alternative scheme was put up to the right hon. Gentleman, and he turned it down, although the people who put it up were likely to lose by it. They would get a greater proportion by the scheme which he has put up. I am glad that he has done what he has done, and my criticism of the scheme does not alter the fact that the fishermen are indebted to him for his interest. I hope that that interest will continue, and that it will not be confined merely to the people who lost nets in that storm, but that it will extend to more needy cases.

Mr. SINKINSON: I have a certain amount of pleasure in learning that so much of this Estimate has been given to my constituency, but the Government have touched only the fringe of what could be done in the harbours. I suppose, however, that we shall have to be thankful for small mercies—

Mr. E. BROWN: And expect more!

Mr. SINKINSON: I certainly expect more in future. I should like to enlarge upon the question of Eyemouth, which wants to come into the show with reference to the dredger. In Eyemouth we are using a dredger for something like 18 months at a time at a cost of somewhere in the region of £1,100. This has to be borne by the local harbour people. It is a burden, and I hope that, in giving out the use of this dredger, it will be allocated to those regions where the greatest expense is being borne. If, for instance, there are in the Moray Firth, or in any other part of the coast, places
where it is costing £2,000 a year for dredging, those places deserve the use of the dredger more than any other place which is spending, say, only £1,000. I claim that Eyemouth should not be lost sight of in future. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for having brought into his scheme the question of Port Seton. That is a small harbour, and is out of date. The mouth of the harbour was made when we had sailing boats and they had to have plenty of space to get in, when the wind would allow, but now the mouth is required to be very much narrower, and I believe that we are going to have sufficient allotted to us to get that scheme brought up to date.

Mr. BOOTHBY: We do not get very many opportunities in this House of discussing the herring fishing industry. We have not had a chance of discussing this loan fund yet, and therefore I was a little amazed by the strenuous efforts of hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the Under-Secretary of State, to limit the discussion. As to the hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay), I do not know what he is up to at all, and I do not know what his constituents have to do-with herrings, except to eat them. If he can persuade them to eat more, he will do more good than by raising points of order in the Committee. I want to-say a word or two about some points raised by the Secretary of State, and I hope that he will not take it amiss if I tender to him my sincere thanks and congratulations on what he has been able to do for Fraserburgh Harbour, and some of the other harbours round the coast of Scotland. I know of the difficulty of getting any money out of the Treasury for any purpose connected with the-herring fishing industry, and he has been remarkably successful, particularly in regard to the new construction works in Fraserburgh Harbour.
He referred to the £20,000 allocation which was made for the purpose of reducing the harbour dues to the herring fishers. He might have given the credit for that to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the money was set aside in his Budget of 1929. That sum was definitely stated in the Budget as being about to be put aside for the purpose of reducing the herring dues to the fishermen. I do not complain that the
right hon. Gentleman has now diverted that money from the original purpose to the purposes of dredging. That is just as useful, and perhaps more useful, from the point of view of the fishing industry, than the reduction of dues, and, if he has been advised by the Fishery Hoard to use the money for dredging purposes, I am satisfied. I would like to know from the Under-Secretary, however, how the services of these dredgers are to be apportioned or allocated. Who is to apply for them, and how will they be allocated as between the different harbours on the north-east coast of Scotland?
The right hon. Gentleman took the opportunity of pointing out exactly what he had been able to do, from the financial point of view, for each harbour round the coast of Scotland. I think that everything he said in that connection was out of order on this Estimate, but I am making no complaint. It is a good thing he did do that, but I complain that, when we begin to criticise the administration of the loan fund, he should call that out of order. He cannot have it all his own way, and confine the Debate to things which he has done well, and prevent discussion of things which has mishandled. He has ever-estimated some of his triumphs. He announced the apportionment of an annual grant of £3,000 for piers as if it were a grant of £3,000,000. It is likely to save a bit of one pier, and the scheme is not likely to save the fishing industry round the coast of Scotland.
I am afraid I have not done about Fraserburgh yet, because the right hon. Gentleman has not come down to the real point which, as he well knows, is the £100,000 of debt which is still hanging like a millstone round the neck of Fraserburgh, and which is owing to the Public Works Loan Board. The Board know they will never get that money back, if they have to wait 500 years.

Mr. J. BROWN: Is that a threat?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Yes! I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman and the Under-Secretary to make the strongest representations to the Treasury—from a, purely business point of view, quite apart from any question of charity for the fishermen—that if they would consolidate that, loan at a reasonable rate of interest they would be much more likely to get
money out of Fraserburgh than they will be by dawdling along in the present way, charging Fraserburgh as much as it can pay. At an optimistic estimate., the revenue of Fraserburgh Harbour amounts to £20,000 a year, and the expenditure comes to about £10,000, so that they have a surplus of about £10,000 a year. If we could consolidate the loan from the Public Works Loan Board at a rate of interest of anything under £9,000 a year, it would give the Harbour Board a sporting chance of being able to meet their obligations and put them upon a sound basis once again Until and unless we do that, the position is bound to be unsatisfactory.
There are two other points which are rather important and which I wish to put to the Under-Secretary. The first concerns the Peterhead scheme, the new scheme for the deepening of Port Henry Dock and for other construction work. I introduced a deputation from the Peterhead Harbour Board to the right hon. Gentleman some weeks ago and he promised then to give consideration to the question. It is a very urgent matter, because Peterhead is the principal port during the summer fishing for the whole fishing fleet, not merely the Scottish fishing fleet, but the international herring fishing fleet, and until this dock is deepened the port cannot handle the fleet efficiently and safely during the summer fishing in July and August. The scheme would give a great deal of employment in Peterhead at a difficult time, and it is one of those public developments which ought to be sanctioned when we are dealing with unemployment. I beg the Under-Secretary to make some pronouncement on the question, if not to-day at any rate at a very early date. I do not know why the scheme is being held up. It is not like an ordinary harbour scheme. As the Under-Secretary knows quite well, Lerwick, Wick, Fraserburgh and Peterhead are the four ports which are required for the use of the international fishing fleet. It is different from the case of the ordinary lay-up ports for the drifters at other places round the coast.
The other question raised concerns Boddam Pier. The hon. Member said it was being considered by the Fishery Board. I know it is, and I believe the Board have sent down an officer to inquire into the position there. Briefly
the situation is as follows. That pier has been gradually crumbling away for the last four or five years. About seven months ago it became clear that it was going to collapse, and three or four months ago it did collapse, and the entrance to the harbour is now extremely dangerous, so dangerous that the small fishermen hesitate to go in and out at all. The population of the village is very poor, and they cannot possibly put up the money for its repair. In the interests of safety it is essential that something should be done to restore this pier by building up the part of it which has collapsed. I again ask whether the Under-Secretary can make some statement about the Peterhead dock development scheme and the repair of Boddam Pier, and also say a few words on the subject of the loan to the fishing industry.
I know the Secretary of State thought I was engaged in raising a party point against him when, immediately after that storm happened, we continually criticised his methods of handling the emergency situation created. We did not appeal to him entirely because of and on behalf of those who have suffered in that particular storm. We appealed to him to do something to help fishermen to replace their nets on account of the storm, which had created a special emergency, but neither I nor my hon. Friends below the Gangway ever contemplated that the proceeds of either the loan or the relief fund would be devoted solely to those fishermen who lost their gear upon that particular night. I have always held that they were by no means the hardest hit and as the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Major Wood) has pointed out, the very fact that they were taking part in the southern fishing shows that they were more prosperous than some of their colleagues who were so poor and so lacking in nets that they were unable to leave for the south.
I always disliked the appeal to charity. I am a good enough Socialist for this, at any rate, that I deplore an appeal to private charity to help an industry out of a problem which is economic, first and last. It is a problem which has always existed in the industry and was only intensified by the storm. I have never concealed my dislike of that scheme, and
always thought it would be insufficient, and so it has proved to be. I would like to join in what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banffshire has said about the mistake of mixing up a relief fund with a loan fund and sending out the same questionnaire. It was not a very wise questionnaire, and it caused a great deal of justifiable indignation amongst the fishermen. It asked them whether they wanted a grant from the relief fund or a loan from the Government. Although I am sure the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman were of the very best, I cannot help thinking that the whole problem of loans and credits for nets for the herring fishermen has not been very well handled. There ought not to have been an appeal to charity, and it ought never to have been mixed up with the question of a Government loan. The questionnaire was most ill-advised and the fishermen were justifiably indignant. The rate of interest on the loan was too high. I wish the right hon. Gentleman would say that although he would make a small grant in cases of necessity to those who have been hard hit, he would await the Report of the Committee which, I understand, is sitting under the chairmanship of an officer of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries considering the whole question of a permanent loan to the fishermen as a whole for the purpose of assisting them to replace their gear. That is the kind of expenditure which is productive expenditure; it helps an industry to carry on. That expenditure ought to come first—miles before any form of doles or pensions.
I do not know that there is anything more to be said about the loan fund. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that he has said his last word and there is no question of persuading him to lower the rate of interest or to make it applicable to all fishermen. He still insists that it shall apply only to the fishermen who lost their gear upon that one night. It is something to the good if they are to get it, but I will stick to my point that they are not the fishermen who deserve it most, and I would like to make my protest against the allocation of this loan solely to those fishermen, who, as the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire justifiably said, were lucky enough, as things turned out, to be at sea on that
particular evening. As a point of Order I would like to ask whether I should be allowed to raise a question about research. The Fishery Board carry out a great deal of research work.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is nothing in the Supplementary Estimate dealing with research.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The next time the Fishery Board Estimates comes up we will have a go at research. In the meantime, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman not to be too indignant with the attitude some of us have taken up on the question of the loan. I would thank him most sincerely for what he has already done for Fraserburgh, and I wish more power to his elbow, particularly in his dealings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it is our business on this side of the House to criticise and to express such criticisms as reach us from our constituents. If we are not to do that we had better pack up and go home. The right hon. Gentleman has been apt to attribute nothing but the most base and sordid motives to anybody who has ventured to disagree with his policy, but I would ask him to remember that while many of us cannot entirely agree with all his methods of administration, we have nothing but the highest regard for his character.

Mr. J. BROWN: I understand that the last speaker is a Member for Aberdeen and an Aberdonian.

Mr. BOOTHBY: No, I am not an Aberdonian.

Mr. BROWN: Then what I was going to say will have no point. I wish to deal with the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Banffshire (Major Wood), that I had no interest in the loan or reparations. He himself was pleading that the loan should not be confined to those who suffered in the storm on that particular night in November, because if it were confined to them I gather that his own constituents will not benefit very much. I am much in the same position.

Major WOOD: The hon. Member has entirely misapprehended what I said. I said that if it was confined to that night over half the money would go to my constituency. I pointed out that my constituents put forward an alternative scheme, perhaps against their own interests.

Mr. BROWN: I accept that, but I repeat that the hon. and gallant Member did say that I had no interest in the matter. He wondered why it should be confined to that particular night and I agree that it should not be so confined. I am not sure whether I am in order, but I want to talk about reparations also. I suppose it will not be in order, but if I were in order I should say that a fisherman who had lost his gear in the Firth of Forth because of an unlighted buoy should come under some scheme of reparations or compensation from the Fishery Board. I submit that point for the attention of my right hon. Friend. We have enterprising fishermen who do not confine themselves to the West of Scotland but take their skill and their energy into the East. Many hon. Members from the East and the North seem to think there are no fishermen in the West. That is what I am annoyed about. [Interruption.] Certainly. I am sure hon. Members will back me up in saying that there are fishermen in other parts of Scotland besides the East and the North. We in the West of Scotland do not try to levy blackmail on anyone. We do not threaten anyone that we will not pay our debts. If we have contracted debts, we endeavour honourably to pay them. We may be too poor to pay them for a long time but, as soon as we are in funds, we will pay our legitimate debts.
I also want to add my meed of praise to the right hon. Gentleman and the Fishery Board for what they have done. I am not alluding to the huge sum of £10 which was given to clear out rats. I am very thankful indeed that something has been done for the very important harbour of Girvan in my constituency, though not nearly as much as we should like. Still, it is more than our hon. Friends, although they are Scotsmen, did for us in their administration. It is always to the good that we are getting something done, and it amazes me always that Members twit a Labour Government, as soon as it comes into office, because it is not doing enough. It is almost impossible for any boat to come into this harbour. It must wait on the tide. That is because we have had no dredging for a very long time. The river silts very quickly and you can almost wade across the harbour at low water. In some parts you can go across dryshod.
We should like it restored to its old place. Bigger vessels are now required, and they will not be able to use it unless we have this dredger in operation. It is the biggest harbour on our side, and it deserves attention. I am assured from the attitude of the Secretary of State that he will do something to wipe out the disgrace of all Governments who have refused to assist such an important harbour. There is another little harbour—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot enter into a discussion of individual harbours. It is quite true that the Minister gave a long list of grants made to various harbours and I did not call him to order, because I thought the Committee would like to have the information, but it is obvious that we could not have a detailed discussion on the claims of individual harbours.

Mr. BROWN: If I talk about illegal trawling I shall be out of order also, but to illegal trawling is due a great deal of the trouble and disaster which has overtaken our fishermen, and it should have the attention of the Government at the very earliest possible moment so that it may be abolished and, when we are attacked by illegal trawlers we shall have our Government boat which will be able to lay the others by the heels.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Member must seek some other opportunity to raise that grievance.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May we know whether these are British or foreign trawlers about which the hon. Member is complaining?

Mr. BROWN: A great many of them come from Fleetwood, wherever that is. My geography is a little astray. I am informed it is in Lancashire.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member not to pursue the topic.

Mr. BROWN: Though I may have transgressed, I hope that the points will be taken into account, and that we shall have the attention of the Fishery Board while the Labour Government are in office, because I am afraid as soon as they go out a great many of these things will be lost sight of.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I want to deal with the question of the loan for the results of a specific disaster to the herring fleet. I agree with the hon. Member that we should not treat this question at all as a matter of levity and, further, there can be no question as to our right to discuss it when we remember that the whole livelihood of the country depends upon it being able to hold possession of the trade routes of the seas, to be able to put ships on the seas to carry our produce to and fro, and that that can only be done by having a mercantile marine and a Navy and auxiliaries such as are supplied by our fishermen. Then we realise that the great fishing industry apart from its immediate purpose of supplying food, is also a thing upon which the lifeblood of our people in peace and war depends. Then we realise that, however jocularly we may take some of the points in a Debate like this, we are dealing with one of the integral issues for the whole livelihood of our people. I want to assure the Government that they have made a very grave mistake in dealing with this question of the loan. I am not going to say they should have made it a loan for anything else than this specific disaster. I want to allude to alternative methods. You cannot be expected to justify your criticism if you are not prepared to show you think something better could have been done.
In the first place, I should have expected a Socialist Government to make a grant out of public funds to these people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered loss and not left it to private charity. If they began by countenancing a private charity fund, could not they at least have done what the late Government did in the case of distress in the coal fields and undertaken to give pound for pound to what was subscribed? The response from the great Cities was great, and I m proud to think that Edinburgh headed the list, but it was very discouraging, almost to the point of drying up the fount of benevolence, that the Socialist Government were doing nothing and were asking the private capitalist—for anyone who has savings is a capitalist—to come to their rescue. That was a mistake. Then what did they do when they came to the loan? They mixed it up with this matter of private benevolence and they
issued a most shameful questionnaire without giving any indication, having opened up their souls, and revealed, what to Scotsmen comes next to their souls, the secret of their bank books, of the possibility of relief and on what terms these people were going to give. I know the Secretary of State to be a man of kindly heart and the best intentions, but I think he has been misled and has fallen into a most grievous error. He has insulted the fishermen and has done a great injustice to the possibility of doing them justice, either by private charity or by public service. For that reason I want to speak in the most condemnatory terms of the way in which the Government have mishandled this. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, if he is to be many more years in office, will from this Debate have learnt one lesson—to treat the fishing industry with proper respect.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. McKINLAY: I rise with great fear in my soul that I am not sufficiently expert on herrings, but there is one item in this Vote in which I am intensely interested—the question of the provision of a new dredger. While the tastes of my constituents in Partick may rise beyond the humble herring, and while they possibly will not be satisfied with anything less than the best of filleted sole, nevertheless we are in the main engaged in the shipbuilding industry, and I am disappointed that the Government have only made provision for one new dredger. The hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) desired to know whether it was going to commence operations one day at Banff, then proceed the next day to Buckie and, after picking a bagful of sand here and another there, proceed to meander round the North East coast. He wanted to know how the dredger was going to be used. Frankly, I believe that the fishing harbours of Scotland have been permitted to get into such a dilapidated condition that the only way to deal with them is to have a sufficient number of dredgers supplied. If there is one criticism which I wish to offer more than another it is that I believe there is ample scope for the use of one or two more dredgers in this particular work. I was very much amused when I heard the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) suggest that a Socialist Govern-
ment should have made a grab for State funds to enable the fishermen to replenish their gear. I wonder what sort of shouts we should have heard from hon. Members opposite if the Socialist Government had said that they were prepared to issue a loan to the fishing industry or to any other industry free of interest? The question of the pound-for-pound scheme in connection with the Miners' Fund is not on a par with the scheme for fishermen. I am a craftsman myself and I have tools, but I have yet to find that the public funds are available for those belonging to my craft to make good their losses through an act of God.
We have heard a good deal about co-operative enterprise among the fishermen. The hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood) said that their herrings were a three-part division. If the hon. and gallant Member for Banff was so much interested in this business, I think he ought to have placed his valuable services at the disposal of the fishermen, and he ought at least to have pointed out that it ought to be a standing charge against their results that they set aside a sum for the depreciation and renewal of their gear when necessary. Probably the hon. and gallant Member will say that these fishermen are too poor to make this provision for themselves. If that is so, why not be honest and say that this business cannot possibly exist as a private enterprise. This country always seems to be prepared to bolster up anything with public funds that is not economic, but why not be bold and say that the fishing industry should belong to the nation. I suggest to the Secretary of State for Scotland that this is a question which he ought to explore, and find out where there are dredgers available of which he can make use in Scottish harbours. More dredging facilities ought to be placed at the disposal of the fishing industry in Scotland, because this work is absolutely necessary if our harbours are to be brought up to such a standard of efficiency as will enable them to maintain the fishing industry to get out of the condition in which it finds itself at the present moment.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I am sure the Committee has listened with great interest to the statement made to-day by the Secretary of State for Scotland in regard to the action which he has taken to give effect to the many representations
which he has received from both inside and outside this House as to the urgency for dealing with the needs of our fishery harbours. The right hon. Gentleman has claimed credit for taking action in the matter, but I can only say that no Government which hesitated to deal with the extremely urgent case of the Scottish fishermen at the present moment would be deserving of the confidence of our people. I am certain that the work which has been done is only a very small contribution towards what is yet required, and what will be required to be done in the immediate future.
The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to the amounts which had been contributed towards the Harbour Improvement Schemes, and he has given us a long list. We all welcome the fact that various harbours in our own Divisions have participated in that advantage. I quote, as an illustration, one of the harbours in my Division, that of Anstruther. When a harbour authority came forward, as the Commissioners did there, and offered to pay one-third of the cost of what was required for the immediate work of putting their harbour in order at a time when giving employment to the unemployed was urgent; when the State was asked to supply the balance, the very least that could be done by the Government was to give effect to the proposals which were made to them, and I do not understand why there has been so much delay in the matter. We have been told again and again in this House that the Scottish authorities have not been sufficiently active in putting forward schemes with regard to unemployment, but, when we do so, we have to wait, and I can only say to my hon. Friend who represents the Scottish Office that we do not think that these harbour schemes should have been delayed as long as they have been.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I think it will relieve the hon. and learned Gentleman to know that the Anstruther Harbour Commissioners sent us a letter of thanks for what we did in the matter.

Mr. MILLAR: I am aware that the Harbour Commissioners are grateful for the assistance which has been given to them, and I am glad to know that assistance has been given in that direction. That work is urgently required to be
done, and the Harbour Commissioners were prepared themselves to contribute a large amount. It seems to me therefore that the matter should have been dealt with immediately without any delay. The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) justified the position of the Labour Government in refusing to make grants towards fishermen. I can only say that, so far as I am aware, one of the first acts following out the recommendation of their Committee of Civil Research, instead of providing anything for the share fishermen or the herring fishermen of Scotland, was to provide no less than £250,000 towards the subsidising of a very wealthy industry, the trawling industry, in order to provide a new survey vessel. The cost of that vessel was £34,000 a year for a period of five years. That vessel was provided instead of spending more money on coming to the assistance of some of the Scottish fishermen who suffered so severely in the recent disaster.
I would like to say that I share the views which have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends, that the Government did not handle that situation as it ought to have been handled in relation to these funds. There is no doubt that there was an expectation that the Government were going to come into the field themselves in order to help the fishermen, but, instead of my right hon. Friend making a contribution from his own Government, they sent round the hat, and, when the sum contributed fell far short of what was required, it became necessary, in the view of the Government, to suggest another fund, a loan fund of £50,000, which we are dealing with in this Estimate. That fund was only proposed late in the day, and it came into operation under exceedingly unsatisfactory auspices. Forms were first issued suggesting that application should be made without any idea whatever being given to the fishermen themselves as to what the conditions of the loan were to be. I hold in my hand a later form which was issued officially on the 8th of February setting forth the conditions with regard to the loan, applications for which were to close on the 1st of March. The disaster occurred on the 11th November last, and the loan was only suggested several months after that. The conditions of the loan fund were only made available to the fishermen
three weeks before the fund was closed. Surely, it is not suggested that that is a fair way of treating the fishermen or that they had adequate notice.
I appeal to the Secretary of State for Scotland that he should not close this fund until every opportunity has been given to the fishermen who may not yet have put in their applications to share in this fund. As a result of what has taken place, it appears that some 278 applications have been received for a sum of £21,520. I feel quite satisfied that if fuller information and particulars had been given there would have been a much larger application made for this fund. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that the manner in which the fund was instituted and the way in which the conditions were set forth has contributed largely to the fact that the fund has not been more fully utilised. In the circumstances, I suggest also that the balance of the fund should still be made available for helping those fishermen who lost their gear and nets on other occasions than the night of 11th November last, and that it should form the nucleus of a replacement fund which the right hon. Gentleman and the Fishery Board might institute for the purpose of meeting the needs of a great many fishermen who have suffered quite as much, and whose cases are quite as hard, as those who lost their gear on the 11th November last. It is not true, if I may say so with respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that none of us on these benches urged the institution of a replacement fund. I remember myself putting question after question on the subject, and I think some of my hon. Friends put questions as well. We have always taken the view that in justice to the fishermen there ought to be a fund to meet the hard cases of men who were down and out, and who have lost their gear on other occasions than the night of the disaster of November last. I am satisfied that there will be no real satisfaction afforded to the fishermen of Scotland until such a fund has been instituted to enable them to replace their gear and also their fishing vessels which are now worn out and unseaworthy.
With regard to the reconditioning of the fishery harbours, we welcome the information that a fund is to be set aside
to deal specially with the smaller harbours. The Fishery Board have had a fund for a period of years to provide specially for that purpose, but it is quite insufficient at the present moment. I understand from this Estimate that it is intended by the right hon. Gentleman to provide out of the £20,000 fund for reconditioning harbours a further sum for the Fishery Board for the purpose of enabling them, with the £3,000 grant to the Piers and Quays Fund, to provide for the smaller harbours. Let me say that there are many such harbours at the present moment which are in great need of repair. I will not go into the details with regard to the schemes for particular harbours, but in my own Division the harbour of St. Monance and Pittenweem have put in claims which are awaiting consideration, and these are of very considerable importance to our fishing industry. A great many of these small harbours have silted up and many of them expose seriously to danger the fishermen who come in and go out of them. Therefore, this is a matter of great urgency, and I think the right hon. Gentleman should have these harbours dealt with immediately. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to give us an undertaking that these other cases which are receiving consideration now are likely to be dealt with at an early date? Let me remind him that with every month that goes by there is always an increasing difficulty and risk in regard to the use of these harbours.
I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman himself is aware, from personal inspection, of the needs of these Fife harbours, and of harbours on other parts of the coast, and I would strongly urge upon him that there is a great deal of useful employment that might be given to our unemployed in reconditioning our harbours, and that it is the duty of the Government to take up the question immediately and to have the work proceeded with without delay. After the War, many of the harbours were suffering from being silted up with sand and débris. Many of the harbour authorities have been unable to meet the necessary expenditure, and the provision of an additional grab dredger was essential in order to enable the work to be completed. A great many of these harbours which have been dredged with bucket dredgers still have a great bank of mud right up to the edge
of the quay wall, which could not be removed without the use of a grab dredger. We understand now that this new dredger is to be available within a month, and that an opportunity is to be given at once to the various harbour authorities to make their applications and to have the dredgers put into use continuously from this time onwards for the purpose of cleaning out the harbour basins. Perhaps we may get some information with regard to the programme that the right hon. Gentleman has in view, and also with regard to the terms, because, after all, there are a great many harbour authorities to-day—

The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that we must not travel so wide of the Vote as that.

Mr. MILLAR: I would point out that part of this Estimate deals with the question of providing a new grab dredger and with the cost of maintaining the dredger. A sum is set aside for the maintenance of a grab dredger—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood that the hon. and learned Member was raising the question of the terms of the grant for making new harbours.

Mr. MILLAR: No; it was for the use of the dredger. I was asking the right hon. Gentleman whether he would give us an indication of what the terms would be, and on what footing he is going to discriminate with regard to the provision of the services of this dredger free, as distinguished from cases in which a charge is to be made. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many harbour authorities today are not in a financial position to meet the claims which are made upon them, and I would suggest to him that it would be a fair basis to work upon that those harbours which are in need of dredging should be thoroughly cleaned out for the harbour authorities without cost, and that they should be put in a position to start again to endeavour under better conditions to secure a revenue which will enable them to meet these charges to a certain extent in the immediate future. In the meantime, the work requires to be done in many cases without any additional burden being thrown upon the harbour authorities.
I would like, in conclusion, to say, that, while we welcome very heartily the addi-
tional provision that has been made for the harbours of Scotland, we are glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman is making use of the machinery of the Development Fund which was set up by a Liberal Government in 1909, and which has been extended by subsequent Governments. I am sorry to say that during the period of the last Government we did not get much advantage from that or from any other fund. The Road Fund, also, was very seriously deplenished. We expect, however, any Government having the interests of the country at heart to come forward with additional assistance out of the Development Fund for these purposes, and I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that those cases which come before the Development Commissioners and are dealt with, come back to the Treasury with the Commissioners' recommendations.
I submit very respectfully that, when the Development Commission have made up their minds that the work requires to be done, the Government of the day ought not to resist the claim, but ought rather in every way to support the applications. I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that during the period since the Development Fund was instituted, in 1909, down to last year, no less a sum than £427,000 has been spent by way of grants and loans for the harbour purposes for which that fund was instituted, and I am glad to think that the right hon. Gentleman is following in the footsteps of the Government which first instituted that fund. I congratulate him, personally, upon the interest that he has taken in this question of harbour development, and I am glad to know that the Government of the day recognise that the fishermen of Scotland deserve their sympathy and support. I regret very much that that sympathy was not shown in a more practical form at the time of the recent disaster, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to accept some of the suggestions which have been made in the course of this discussion, and that the fund will be made available as far as possible to meet claims in relation to those who have suffered loss of gear, although their applications have not been put in timeously; and that, so far as the balance is concerned, it will form the nucleus of a larger fund which is now very much needed to meet the claims of men who have suffered on other occasions

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I am sure that I shall be regarded as a very plucky individutl in rising to speak on a Scottish Vote, and particularly a Vote connected with Scottish fishery matters, but I am not going to apologise for speaking in this discussion, because I want to assure hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are interested in this matter that I too am very much interested in fishermen, both inshore fishermen and herring fishermen. I want to point out that there is a bond of sympathy even between those who control the great trawling industry and the inshore fishermen. We realise that there is a place for all in this great industry, and we are always interested in and want to help and assist anything that affects the smaller men.
I have risen because I should like to make some observations on one or two points that have been raised in this Debate. In the first place, I should like to know in general terms what are the terms which have been issued by the right hon. Gentleman under which these loans to herring fishermen can be granted, because I have travelled a great deal among the coasts of Scotland in my researches into the fishing industry, in which, as hon. Members know, I take a big interest. I have talked with Scottish fishermen, and they have told me that the 1924 scheme, inaugurated during the time that the Socialist Government were in office before, was not by any means acceptable to the fishermen. I think the right hon. Gentleman will be able to bear me out in this, that the applications made were so small and meagre as to prove really that the scheme was not popular with the fishermen, and possibly that the terms offered were not acceptable to them. I hope that in this present matter the right hon. Gentleman has taken a lesson from that last experience, and has offered terms that will be acceptable to these men. I know many of these men intimately. I have been closely associated with them, and I know that they are a very honest body of men, anxious to do the best they can for themselves and their wives and families, and they ought to have reasonable assistance in this matter.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. J. Brown) remarked that people were in the habit of twitting this Government with having done very little during the short time that they have been in
office, and he mentioned that the late Government did not do very much for the fishermen. If it were within the bounds of order, I should like to cross swords with the hon. Member on that point, because I am going to suggest that the late Government did many things on behalf of the fishermen of Scotland as well as of England. The list is a considerable one, and it is no argument to say, without giving facts and figures, that someone else did not do anything. There is, however, some justification for some of the criticism of this Government, because I have in my hand a leaflet, issued at the time of the General Election, telling the Scottish fishermen what this Government were going to do for them. I quite admit that the Government have not been in office for a very long time, but still they have not even begun to carry out some of the promises that they made then. Therefore, I suggest that it is fairly reasonable for hon. Members to criticise them on those lines. If a party makes promises, naturally Members of the House, and the people themselves to whom the promises were made, expect them to be carried out.
The hon. Member for Partick (Mr. McKinlay) seemed to be in a rather critical mood as regards what is being done for these inshore and herring fishermen. He talked about interfering with private enterprise and bolstering up private enterprise, and he wondered why it was that we had to do this. He asked, why not be honest and say that the whole system has broken down? It has not broken down. The hon. Member evidently does not understand much about the life of a fisherman, or he would know that it is a very speculative business. There are good seasons and bad seasons, and to talk about the whole system having failed is absurd and ridiculous. The hon. Member, also, does not appear to realise that the present position is that, with the great trawlers or steam drifters, you have the machine working against the hand methods of the inshore fishermen—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot enter into a general discussion on inshore fishing and trawling.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I agree, but I was only replying to an observation made by the hon. Member for Partick.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have said on more than one occasion that I do not know what an hon. Member has said until he has said it, but I can prevent other people from replying to it and developing it.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Then I will deal with the Estimate, on which, surely, I shall not be out of order. I want to point out, on the question of salaries, that, although we are asked to vote an, additional sum of £140, I, at any rate speaking as an English Member, do not begrudge it to the Scottish Fishery Board, because it is a Board which it functioning very well indeed, and the right hon. Gentleman is exceedingly fortunate in having at his disposal officials such as those who are in charge of the Fishery Board for Scotland. I only wish that we had a system in England somewhat on the lines of the Scottish system. We find that on that Board we have officials dealing with all sections of the industry in Scotland, including those who are responsible for protecting the territorial waters. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned something about that matter, but he was ruled out of order, and I am sure that I should be ruled out of order if I tried to state the case on behalf of the trawlermen; but might I say in passing that if I had the opportunity, and I hope it will come during the course of some of the Votes, I should be quite prepared to defend the British trawlermen at any rate in this matter, and to put up a good case on their behalf. As that question has been ruled out of order, I shall have to reserve my observations upon it for some future occasion.
The hon. and learned Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar), in regard to the question of the moneys provided in this Vote for certain matters which were likely to benefit Scottish fishermen, said that the Government had not been so generous to the Scottish fishermen as they had been to the trawling industry, inasmuch as the Government were providing a research vessel for the trawling industry and were only providing a small sum to assist the Scottish inshore fishermen and herring fishermen. I should like to point out to the hon. and learned Member that the Government, in making a grant for that purpose, have taken everything into consideration, including the fact that over
80 per cent. of the white fist landed in this country is landed by the steam fishing vessels.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am trying to find out what connection the observations of the hon. Member have with this Supplementary Estimate, but the connection is not very clear.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg leave to point out that the complaint was made by the hon. and learned Member for East Fife that a smaller sum was being provided in this Vote for a certain service than has been provided for another service, and I submit that I am quite in order in pointing out why that smaller sum was voted as against the larger sum. In the Vote a sum is provided for the salaries of the staff, and the duties of the members of that staff are to deal with this very research vessel of which we have been speaking—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out that the additional sum required, which is a mere matter of £140, does not justify a wide discussion.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I should not like in any way to dispute your Ruling, but I am going to submit that, at any rate, this question of salary has some bearing on this matter. Possibly if this new vessel had not been thought of this additional money would not have been included in this Estimate. I will leave the matter until we have the fishery Estimates before us, and then, perhaps, I shall be able to deal with it fully. I want to say to hon. Members from the Scottish areas that we who represent English fishery areas have every sympathy with their men in the terrible disaster that happened in November last, that we have not begrudged anything which the Government have done, and we should not have begrudged the action of the Government if they had voted the sum of money which was suggested by an hon. Member above the Gangway earlier in the Debate. I know the hopeless and helpless position in which fishermen find themselves when they lose their gear, unless they get assistance. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should be very careful in regard to the conditions imposed on the Scottish fishermen in this connection, and should allow them to replace their gear on fair terms. The point which they made to me was
that they were compelled under the old terms to purchase their gear from certain firms. That is not good business. It is far better to leave it to the fishermen to make their own arrangements with approved firms. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to tell us that they have been able to give a little more freedom to fishermen to purchase gear after they have received help from this loan.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: We Scottish Members are delighted to have the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) legally trawling into a Scottish Debate, but when he tells us that the great trawling industry has sympathy and kindly feeling for the inshore fishermen, well, all that I can say is, from the experiences of my fishermen constituents and in the words of the old Book, "The tender mercies of the wicked are cruel," because they have suffered tremendously from them. I hope that they will not suffer so much in the future. There are many ports where they have been put to the gravest disadvantage, and where they axe not adequately and properly protected. With regard to the grants to fishermen who lost their gear, there is only one question which I should like to ask, and it is: Are those grants being paid? Have the people got the money? One always remembers the case of the Rye lifeboatmen for whose dependants a large sum of money was collected. Those who collected the money seemed to think that it was an Easter egg on which they should sit indefinitely, and there was a great deal of trouble until the Attorney-General, with great skill, showed how the "shell-out" should be done. That is always the danger of funds of that kind. There is a fund in Scotland relating to a colliery disaster which happened 100 years ago, and there is a brass plate over an accountant's office indicating that the fund is still being administered.
I want to know if these people are getting the money, or does it really mean that this eleemosynary fund is still being held up? I am sure that if there has been any delay, the present Secretary of State for Scotland and his assistant will see to it that that delay is speedily ended. I see here that there are grants under Appropriations-in-Aid, and that there is a dredging department, showing items for the maintenance of dredgers and a grant for the recondition-
ing of small fishery harbours, the amount for the latter being £2,300. This sum was hardly worth printing. The reconditioning of our small fishery harbours on the West coast is urgently needed. Take the port of Campbelltown, which would come under the provisions in item C—

The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Robert Young): Appropriations-in-Aid are not part of this Estimate for the purposes of criticism.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: May I call your attention to Sub-head C. You will there see, "Dredging Department…. Acquisition of a grab dredger. Maintenance of dredgers." This is the same sum of money as that included under Appropriations-in-Aid. Then there is, "Grant for reconditioning of small fishery harbours, £2,300." I think that this entitles me to make my comments.

The CHAIRMAN: There can be no discussion of policy under Appropriations-in-Aid. The hon. Member must deal with these amounts under Sub-head C.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I do not want to be long. There used to be a self-denying ordinance in Scottish Debates of limiting speeches to 10 minutes, and if an hon. Member could not express himself in that period of time, he was either purposely prolonging the Debate or he was not a Scotsman—there were doubts about his nationality. May I simply point out that that Vote is really being starved. The Fishery Board say that Campbelltown harbour is not a fishery harbour. It is one of the biggest in Western Scotland and used to be awarded the herring bounty 160 years ago, and when the herring trade was built up, Campbelltown was built up. The Fishery Board refused to dredge the harbour for the fishermen, who are being greatly inconvenienced, alleging that it was not a fishing harbour. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will see that the dredger goes there and dredges the harbour. There is the little harbour of Ardrishaig. That harbour has not been dredged for 60 years, almost contemporaneous with some of the steamboats which supply the district. Because they do not dredge the harbour, the fishing boats have to go into the Crinan Canal basin and have to pay what, perhaps to us may seem a small sum, but which is a considerable sum to the fishermen in
these times. The fishermen believe, and I believe also, that the reason why they do not dredge the harbour is that they want to get tolls from the fishermen for entering the canal basin. They really coerce them or compel them to go into the Crinan Canal basin. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to get another dredger quickly or to give the small one which there is at Ardrossan in order that this harbour may be dredged.
The Duke of Montrose offered Loch Ranza Harbour, "free, gratis and for nothing." A few thousand pounds would pay for the cost of dredging that harbour, and you would get it for nothing. The Duke offered the harbour to the Fishery Board and to provide the harbour-master. I put the proposal strongly before the last Government, but I could not make them see it, I regret to say, but I feel that in appealing to the party opposite, perhaps I shall not appeal a second time in vain. If the Department will dredge that harbour, they will do great benefit. Nothing pleased me more than when the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary, and even the Postmaster-General, no doubt requiring education concerning the Highlands, went round and visited many places in the summer and saw the needs of those places. I hope that grants for piers and quays and harbours will be spent quickly and judiciously on these harbours. I believe that one of these gentlemen when he landed at a beautiful place called Strontian and inquired for the harbourmaster, was asked, "Do you mean the man who lays our goods out on the ground and the rain comes down on them and there is no shelter?" That is all the harbour there is. I hope that the matter of a harbour there is going to be put right. There has been no pier for over half a century, and they cannot get their produce away by the steamer which goes every 10 days, as there is no pier and they have to go 20 or 30 miles to another pier. That is where money is required to be spent. Similarly at Bunessan, in the Island of Mull, the pier requires reconditioning. You can see the effect of having no pier on the life of the crofters if you go to Tirêe, where they have a good pier.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will meet these urgent demands,
because the difference in regard to this class of assistance to the community is that you are increasing people's economic statute. It is not like any other form of assistance. If you give the people good means of transport, good roads and decent piers, you encourage them to be diligent. You make them more zealous to get on with their job. I even say that I wish it could be practical and workable for transport to be practically free, so that the remotest parts of the country could get their produce to the central part as cheaply as it is done in the towns. In America and in Germany there are equalisation of rates tribunals which arrange that sort of thing. They arrange for long distances to be traversed practically at the same cost as the short distances. Something of that kind should be developed in Scotland. It is the only way in which you will be able to spread your population over the countryside, and the dispersal of population is the problem of this century, just as the congestion of population of past times was the principal evil of the rise of industrialism.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Under-Secretary may rest assured that on this side of the House, at all events, they will get every encouragement that we can give them to improve the piers and harbours by getting them dredged. By doing that, they will enable a very fine section of the population, some of our most vigorous men and women, people who in their daily life are always in contact with the works of the Creator, who always feel His influence in their daily work—and you cannot have a finer type of people, and the money will be well spent—to develop their lives.

Major ELLIOT: I feel on this occasion some sympathy with the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I felt, as he sat listening to the Scottish Members, with their mobility of argument, explaining why this, that or the other place should have special treatment, that I could sympathise with him in the difficulty he would find, and which we all would find, in saying that the state of the public purse did not allow them to meet all the demands which had been made upon them and that they were doing the best they could with the resources at their disposal. I am sure that we all sympathised
with the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) when he was emphasising the desirability of the reduction of the transport charges in the remoter parts of Scotland. On that subject the Under-Secretary himself took a prominent interest in the last Parliament. It is true that in regard to the small unit for which some of these grants are being made, the pier and the harbour, there is difficulty in a comparatively large capital sum like that being raised by a small community or even being maintained by a small community. It is one of the difficulties in which our scattered settlements in Scotland frequently find themselves.
We were exploring the possibility in the last Government of putting forward suggestions to see whether in the larger local government units which had been created, the councils which took over the work of the old parish councils, whether it would not be possible for some scheme to be worked out between the central authority and the local authority by which these larger local government units might find it possible to embark upon a policy either of development, or, if not of development, of taking over the maintenance of harbours which are so essential and so vital to the life of the small unit, but which very frequently, being small, they find it impossible to maintain, and still less to repair them once they have been allowed to fall into disuse. I throw out the suggestion that the problem of who is to undertake and, still more, who is to maintain these capital works, might well be explored between the central and the local authorities. Maintenance wholly by the central authority is inadvisable in that it opens the central authority to all kinds of demands, some of which are not entirely justified, and may lead to demands such as were made in the old days of the Irish administration, when piers were constructed more or less as relief works, and it was said that if piers were put down at certain places it would not do any harm to fishing, because there were plenty of rocks there and no boats went there, anyhow. The right hon. Gentleman might consider this larger question of administration when he is dealing with the new grant which he has been able to obtain.
I should like to compliment him on the fact that in connection with the new grant he has been able to secure that a
deposit account shall be opened into which unexpended balances shall be placed. I hope that that precedent is not merely for this year but that it will be maintained in subsequent years. Although the Treasury vigorously resist this principle, it is a principle which leads to economy in the long run in that it secures that money is not rushed out during the course of the financial year purely for the purpose of getting it spent, because any unexpended sum is swallowed up by the Treasury. It is better that it should be retained in the hands of the persons responsible, and that they should know that if they save a certain sum that money will go to their credit on a future occasion.
The grant which the right hon. Gentleman has obtained is of the same amount as the grant of which we were able to obtain a promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Conservative Government. We have heard disputes between the two Chancellors of the Exchequer as to whether that sum actually existed or not, but the disputes between the two Chancellors of the Exchequer have become so frequent and involve such enormously large sums compared with this small amount. We may take it this is a grant in respect of which we on this side obtained a pledge from our Chancellor of the Exchequer, and we leave the matter there, with every confidence that Scottish members, having once been promised money, will see to it that that money is forthcoming, whatever Government happens to be in power. We suggested dealing with this money along lines different from that which the Secretary of State now proposes. We were struck, as he must have been struck, and certainly as every Treasury officer has been struck, with the necessity for dealing with these harbour debts. While the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) was sitting beside me to-day, discussing the Estimate, he said that he remembered the question of these harbour debts being before him when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
These debts are ancient and hoary, and it is no longer a business proposition to keep them on the books. We put forward arguments of considerable strength which led to the promise of the £20,000 a year grant by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Roughly speaking, the report of the Fish-
ery Board says, something like £57,700 has been forthcoming by way of grant from the Development Fund since 1909, and a sum of £423,925 has come by way of loan from the Development Fund. In addition, a considerable sum has been advanced by the Public Works Loans Board. These bodies are simply the taxpayer under one alias or another. Moreover, several of these harbour trusts have borrowed money from the banks. In looking over the matter, we found that nearly £1,000,000 were owing by these harbours in one way or another, either to the Public Works Loans Board, or for Development Fund advances, or for advances from the banks and the local authorities. It was obvious to us that the time had come to have a large consolidating operation and to write off not merely £100,000 as has been done by the right hon. Gentleman but something like £600,000; certainly a substantial sum. In that way we should be doing what every business firm has to do in drawing a pen through cyphers which do not represent any real value, and from which no real return can ever be obtained.
I trust that the Secretary of State will not be weary in well-doing but that he will approach the Treasury once more and point out that here is a large book debt which has no real meaning, and that it is not good business simply to keep clerks entering up these debts year after year whether they be Public Works Loan debts, or Development Fund debts. The Public Works Loan Board and the Development Fund are merely the taxpayer in another form, and £50,000 taken out of the taxpayers' pockets from the Development Fund is just as much a drain on the taxpayers of this country as £50,000 taken from the Public Works Loan Board. The close and meticulous division that is drawn by the accountants of the Treasury between these various funds is necessary and right for the purpose of accounting, but for the purpose of administration and high policy they should be disregarded, and a consolidating operation should be carried through once and for all. We should say to these harbour authorities: "You owe this money, but we have written off the irrecoverable debt which you never could pay."
My fear is that the right hon. Gentleman is now administering the
£20,000 grant for new development and new advances of one kind and another which eventually will be added to the liability of these harbours, and that there will be no writing off of the liabilities of the harbours. We shall find that a harbour, nominally reconditioned, is still hopelessly insolvent, and that the harbour authorities will have a hopeless outlook, which does not lead to sound administration or development. They will not put any of their own money into the undertaking, because they realise that if they have cash in hand somebody will come along and demand their pound of flesh. We found in the case of the de-rating scheme that money saved in de-rating was in many oases simply passed on to the central authority, when a harbour town was nominally receiving advantage from de-rating. That was felt very much by the industries which we were doing our best to deal with.
In these matters we should realise, with the larger local authorities that have been brought into existence, the necessity for promoting schemes for the benefit of harbours. A road through a harbour is just as much a road as a road through the landward portion of a town. The prosperity of the country depends to a considerable extent on the prosperity of its component parts, and money spent in repairing a bridge in a harbour is just as much county development as money spent in repairing a bridge over a river in some other part of the county. I suggest the exploring of the possibility of using larger local authority units as partners in the development schemes, and the writing off by the Treasury of these long-standing debts.
I have not dealt with the question of loans to the herring fishermen, but in that matter I do consider that the Secretary of State is seriously to blame. One feels that a contribution pound for pound ought to have been made to that fund by the Government. The appeal, which was rightly made and well responded to by the people of Scotland, would have been better responded to if the people had felt that the Government were taking a part in repairing the disaster that had occurred. Although we were justified in making a grant to the Miners' Relief Fund, pound for pound, and a very substantial grant it was, the grant to the fishermen is more justifiable, because it was to restore capital and to enable
people to become self-supporting, while the grant to the Miners' Relief Fund was merely to tide over distress and was not producing a self-supporting unit at the end of it. In spite of these criticisms, we welcome the Secretary of State for Scotland as a good Scotsman, and as having given proof of his sterling Scottish qualities. Whoever promised the £20,000 the Secretary of State has now secured it, and we wish him well in the matter.
We shall certainly not divide against this Estimate. Let the right hon. Gentleman come back with a better Estimate if he can, because we all feel that, in spite of what has been said by the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley), the great trawling industry is now getting on to an economic basis, but the industry of the small harbours is not by any means on an economic basis, and will need fostering, managing and looking after for some time to come. It deserves well of the country and we should do our utmost to set that industry once more on its feet.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. SCOTT: I represent a constituency in which there is an enterprising fishing community. There are several harbours, at Stonehaven and other places, on the Kincardineshire coast, and I would like to extend an invitation to the Secretary of State to come to Kincardineshire at the earliest opportunity, as he has been going to other parts of Scotland, and to visit these harbours and see what they require. They require dredging, and I think that the new dredger might pay a visit to them. They also are interested in this question of remission of debt, and I should like to reinforce what has been said by the right hon. Member for Kelvin-grove (Major Elliot) with regard to the consolidation of debt. Stonehaven Harbour, for example, is fairly heavily in debt, and there ought to be established something like a Dawes Commission which would go into these questions of debt. If they decided that there was no chance of recovering it and that it was, as it has been described, a hoary statement of figures, then the sooner it is wiped off the slate the better.
There is one other matter to which I would like to refer. While we are all glad that a fund has been collected for the benefit of those unfortunate fisher-
men who suffered on 11th November, I would press upon the attention of the Government the numerous cases that exist of fishermen who lost their boats and gear at other times than 11th November. It happens every year. I myself have quite recently put to the Secretary of State a case where a fisherman in my own constituency lost his boat and gear in a gale. There the Secretary of State had to intimate regretfully to me that there was no fund from which a loan could be given to the man to enable him to replace his means of livelihood. I hope the Secretary of State will press upon the Development Commission or the Chancellor of the Exchequer the need for providing a fund from which such cases can be suitably met.

Sir FREDERICK THOMSON: I want to put one or two questions before the Debate closes. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) said with regard to the feelings entertained by the great trawling industry for those engaged in inshore fishing. After all, the great bulk of the fish landed in this country is caught by the trawlers, and they are the most essential part of the industry, but they have every desire to see the in-shore fishermen prosperous, and there is no doubt that from a national point of view the in-shore fishermen are of great importance. There is nothing in the criticism that the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) made of the Government on their expenditure on the fishery research question. It is absolutely essential that new fishing grounds should be sought out, and the money expended in that way is truly for the national advantage. As regards the loan to those fishermen who lost their nets, there is one point that ought to be kept in mind, and on which I asked a question yesterday. That is the time for application. It is quite certain that a great many of the fishermen are not yet home, and it is therefore very necessary that the time for application should be extended, especially when one sees the relatively small number of applications that have been made. I hope the Government will keep that point clearly in mind.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland cannot complain in any
way of the tone and temper of the discussion which has taken place this afternoon. There has been almost unanimous commendation of him and of his work. I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire (Mr. Boothby) that the fact that there has been criticism is not in the slightest degree resented. The kind of criticism we have had this afternoon has been, on the whole, very helpful, and will, I am sure, assist the right hon. Gentleman in his daily visits to the Treasury to ensure that still greater consideration will be given to the needs of a very harassed and very deserving class in Scotland. The right hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot) spoke about the problem of transfer of capital works to the larger administrative units in Scotland now in operation under the Local Government Act of 1929. That point, of course, has already been considered by the Board and by my right hon. Friend, and in some places active steps have already been taken to that end. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and his friends that that point of view will be pushed in every possible way. The hon. Member who represents Kincardineshire (Mr. Scott) invited my right hon. Friend to visit Kincardineshire at an early date and see his harbour. My right hon. Friend assures me that it is his intention, if he lives politically long enough, to make a visit to all the harbours in Scotland and to see that the successful steps he has already taken to benefit a large number of them shall be extended to the others which he has not yet been able to assist. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) asked whether the relief fund could not be paid out. I am assured that arrangements made by the Committee are now all but complete, and it is hoped to begin the payment at a very early date. He will observe that we are being continually pressed to extend the period of the application. As it is obviously impossible to begin paying out and then to have applications afterwards, we are in somewhat of a dilemma on this subject, but the right hon. Gentleman has now decided that we cannot wait any longer, and he proposes as speedily as possible to begin payment. He asked, further, when the new dredger would be ready. The dredger, we hope, will be ready within a month's time, and it is
hoped that it will begin operations on some of the smaller harbours on the Scottish coast in a month or six weeks time.
The hon. and gallant Member for Banff (Major Wood), who initiated the discussion, asked by what method priority of application for the services of a dredger would be secured. The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the order of precedence, so far as he can settle, shall be on the ground of need. The greatest urgency and the greatest need will receive priority. There will be no charge whatever for the services of the dredger where the harbour authorities are unable to pay. It will be for the harbour authorities to make out a case on that matter, and of course harbour authorities who are in a position to pay—if there be any—will naturally be asked to make a contribution towards the services of the dredger. The hon. and gallant Member for Banff rather twitted my right hon. Friend on giving a list of harbour authorities who have been asking for assistance during his period of nine or 10 months of office and said that it was a stage army. It is rather unfortunate that he used those words, because we have received from these harbour authorities letters of effusive thanks for the way in which my right hon. Friend has been able to deal with their needs. For example, we have this morning received the following letter from the Anstruther Harbour Commissioners:
The commissioners at their meeting yesterday expressed their gratification that their application for a grant had been attended by success, and instruct us to convey to you their sincere thanks for the assistance you have given in connection with the application and for the interest you have taken in their harbour.
Getting letters of that sort from the harbour authorities in areas represented by hon. Gentlemen who made their protest here this afternoon rather indicates that among their constituents there is a greater appreciation of the work done for them by my right hon. Friend than they have.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Unsolicited?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Yes, unsolicitated testimonials. Turning to another matter, I do not want to make party capital of it, but so much has been said about the attitude of the Government towards the fishing industry that I must refer to it.
Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford), with quite unwonted acerbity, which surprised us very much, criticised the Government for their lack of interest in the fishing community. What are the facts? It is interesting to get the facts. During the past four years of the Government represented by my hon. Friends opposite, the average amount given in each of the four years to the fishing community of Scotland in relief of debt and in assistance to their harbours was £9,382 per annum.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Did that include the benefit of de-rating?

Mr. JOHNSTON: The average amount during those four years was £9,382 per annum to all the fishing authorities, but, during the nine months my right hon. Friend has been in office, there has been handed out £255,280. Now surely these things are facts, and we might have had appreciation of them.

Major ELLIOT: Is the hon. Gentleman counting remission? He will agree that not a penny of interest was charged on those debts during the whole of those years, and I hope he will not make too much of a virtue of it.

Mr. BOOTHBY: You have had some appreciation from some of us.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I know the hon. Member's appreciation in this House is greater than his appreciation outside. I only wanted to make the point that, in fact, we have got more for the fishing industry in the past 10 months and that the Scottish Office have done all in their power. I do not say that we have done all that we could do, or that any Government does that. Of course, there are other interests to be considered as the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove knows. He was engaged daily in thankless appeals at the Treasury. Nevertheless, we have done more in nine or 10 months than I believe has been done by any previous Government in any 10 years.

Sir P. FORD: On a point of personal explanation. I quite appreciate what has been done for harbours and so on, but I still maintain that they mismanaged this particular case, which was what the lawyers called "an act of God." I do not think they realised that the industry is more subject to such acts than
any other. It was the lack of response to that I was referring to, and I withdraw any suggestion of acerbity apart from that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am coming to the act of God, and the question of relief, and I hope that, when I have finished, the hon. Member for North Edinburgh will be able to withdraw his tone of acerbity on that point also. As to the question of the relief fund and the loan, hon. Members know the difficulties we have to face. It is quite idle to pretend that there is any similarity between this and the Miners' Relief Fund. The Miners' Relief Fund was handed out by a committee. It was a fund for the relief of destitution and was handed out sometimes in clothes, sometimes in loans on grocers, in the colliery areas. That would never have been looked at in the case of the fishing areas at all, and we had to approach the problem, as the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) would have been forced to, had he been in charge, from a different angle. The problem we had to face was the provision of fresh capital instruments, and if we had begun with nets there was no reason why we should not have been compelled to do the same thing all round the coast. And if with nets, why not with boats and stores? Once you start on that slope there is no reason why you should not provide fresh capital instruments of all kinds not only for the fishing industry but for the cotton proprietors. [Interruption.] It would have been difficult to decide where to stop. Other industries would declare that they have been heavily hit.

Sir P. FORD: Not by a tempest.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We will not quarrel over the cause, but the fact remains that there are other industries who are not able to help themselves, and if we had begun to provide capital instruments in one industry there is no saying where we should stop. We approached it from a different angle. It may be looking back that we might have made changes, but in addition to this grant of £26,250, generously subscribed by the people of Scotland, there was subsequently offered a £50,000 loan fund. It was a sum of money offered at 3 per cent. interest on a three years' repayment basis. The total of grant and loan was £76,250. Applica-
tions for the loan up to now amount to £21,520, and in the case of the relief fund to £67,753. It is quite possible, indeed we believe, there are the same applicants in both funds, and it may be that the funds already provided will meet the total number of applications, although I cannot say definitely. We are asked, and quite reasonably, about applicants who have not known in time to send in their application forms. They may have been away at Stornoway or somewhere else fishing and have not known the terms of the loan offer. We are asked whether they will be barred out. My right hon. Friend authorises me to say, "Certainly not," and that any bona fide application for a loan by a fisherman in Scotland will be considered

Major-General Sir ROBERT HUTCHISON: I take it that only refers to those who suffered in the gale?

Major WOOD: Are you speaking about the loan or about the grant?

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am referring only to the question of the loan, where we have not received applications up to the £50,000. We have applications for £21,520. Up to the limit of £50,000 I am authorised to say that my right hon. Friend will not be harsh in refusing applications which may have been delayed for bona fide reasons. The hon. Member for East Aberdeen has said that he never attributed to my right hon. Friend or myself base or sordid motives in this matter. I should be out of order in making anything more than a passing reference to it, but I think that the orations of the hon. Member which I have read in the public Press, in which he has made attacks upon my right hon. Friend and myself, might have been made in this House where we could have met them. I am glad to know that at any rate what he and his friends may have said in the beginning of this year, when perhaps they may have been under some misunderstanding as to our attitude in regard to the relief and loan funds, as to base motives and bartering public money for political support have not been repeated.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I never made any such accusation against the Secretary of State for Scotland. I did make an accusation
against the Under-Secretary of State. I said that the speech he made at Aberdeen, in which he told the fishing community that they could not expect to get much out of the Government unless they voted Labour, was a most improper speech to make. I still maintain that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have seen a reference of the hon. Member, in which he alluded to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as laughing at the miseries of the fishermen.

Mr. BOOTHBY: Never. I never made any such statement. The hon. Member has no right to make a statement of that kind. I have never made any such statement. If the Under-Secretary makes an accusation of that kind, he should substantiate it. I ask him to bring forward any proof that I have ever accused the Secretary of State of laughing at the miseries of the fishermen, or to withdraw it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If the hon. Member says that personally he did not make the statement, then I withdraw it, so far as he is concerned, but that the statement has been made by hon. Members of this House is undeniable. I pass from that—

Major ELLIOT: If the statement has been made, hon. Members of this House ought to know. I myself have never made any such statement, and I do not think any of my hon. Friends would make it either. I really think the Under-Secretary, who has withdrawn it in full as regards the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), might have left it at that and not repeated the accusation against certain unnamed Members of the House.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am within the recollection of hon. Members in this House and the late Under-Secretary of State himself that this statement has been made. I do not want to dwell upon it.

Sir P. FORD: I think the Under-Secretary must give us the name of the person or withdraw it.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am sure that the Secretary of State for Scotland does not desire this Debate to close on this note, and, therefore, so far as hon. Members of this House are concerned, I unreservedly withdraw it. The hon. Mem-
ber for East Aberdeen, however, has repeated this afternoon the statement that I said at a public meeting that we were bartering public money for political support. That statement was never made by me; was never reported as being made by me by any newspaper; and I challenge the production of any such statement. I have challenged the statement, but it has never been produced.

Mr. BOOTHBY: I never said that.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I have the report here in the Aberdeenshire papers.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The Under-Secretary of State has now accused me of saying that he said he proposed to barter public money for political support. In the speech I made at Fraserburgh I said that was the only implication which could possibly be placed on his speech at Aberdeen, when he told the fishermen that if they did not vote Labour they could not expect to get the same consideration they would otherwise have got. And I said it was a most improper thing for a Minister of the Crown to attempt to barter public money in return for political support.

Mr. McKINLAY: The same thing.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I say it is not true. There was no justification for it; and I say so now. No question has ever been put to us in this House to give us an opportunity of denying it. Certainly my right hon. Friend denied it when it was put by way of a supplementary question to another question on another occasion.

Mr. E. BROWN: Will the hon. Member permit me? I raised the issue with the Prime Minister as a matter of public policy in my question, and the only reason I did not put it to the hon. Member is that there is no doctrine of Cabinet responsibility as regards Under-Secretaries.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not saying why or how—

Mr. BROWN: But I am!

Mr. JOHNSTON: What I am saying is that there was no justification for the statement, and that no opportunity has ever been given us to meet the allegation of base and sordid motives until now. The decision of the Government as to whether or not they would give a
loan or a grant of public money from the State, or put up a relief fund, was not settled upon any basis of political consideration whatever. It is simply hit ting below the belt for hon. Gentlemen opposite to go about the country and make statements of that kind without the slightest justification or authority. The hon. Member opposite asked, quite properly, whether any further consideration was being given to the further reduction of the debt liability of harbour authorities at Peterhead and Boddam. The answer is in the affirmative. The matter is engaging the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Fishery Board has been very active in getting together all the particulars that affect the matter and the Secretary of State has the question of Peterhead and Boddam and other harbour liabilities under his personal supervision, and it is hoped that within a very early date the remissions of debt that have already taken place and the assistance already given may be extended to other authorities.
I may not have met all the points that have been raised by hon. Members during the discussion. Those points relating to schemes in their own constituencies have been carefully noted, and the Fishery Board for Scotland and the Secretary for State will see to it that, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, no delay will be allowed to prevent the Fishery Board for Scotland seeing that the fishery harbours of Scotland are placed on a proper financial footing, and that every possible encouragement and assistance is given to the fisherman class of Scotland to enable them to make an economic living and to get a better economic return for their very difficult, arduous and dangerous labour. As we have been assured that there is to be no Division on the Vote, and as the points raised have been very elaborately discussed, I appeal to the Committee to let us now have the Vote, and to proceed to other Votes which hon. Members are anxious to discuss.

Mr. E. BROWN: I fall in with that suggestion, but I must say a word about the Under-Secretary's reference to an unfortunate speech which he made. I am the only Member who has raised this issue before in the House. I raised it on the morning on which the speech was reported in the Scottish newspapers. I
am bound to say that had there been no correction from the Under-Secretary, and if the speech as reported was delivered in that way, then every word of the stricture of the hon. Member is justified. I understand from a letter which the Under-Secretary sent to the "Scotsman" that he does not deny using the words alleged, but states that there was another passage between the two parts of the speech as reported, and that this passage gave an entirely different interpretation to his words. We all know how carefully responsible journalists in Glasgow, Aberdeen or Edinburgh do their work, and really the Under-Secretary must not blame hon. Members here when they have the work of a responsible journalist of that kind before them and draw the only conclusion that can possibly be drawn from a reported speech.
Personally, I hope that nothing more will be heard about it, but I also hope that if the Under-Secretary feels that he must make statements of that kind in future—[Interruption.] The Under-Secretary has had his say and he has referred with, some vehemence to Members on this side of the, Committee. I do not want to pursue the matter any further, but I hope that if he feels that he must make statements such as that, he will make them separately and apart from other portions of his speech. More than that I do not want to say. Naturally I accept the Under-Secretary's statement in his letters to the "Scotsman," that what he did say about the Labour movement was in reference to another subject, and not as reported in the papers that we, read.

Mr. JOHNSTON: On a point of personal explanation. May I say that the fullest report of what I did say appeared in the "Aberdeen Press and Journal"? The political remarks I made were not made at all during that part of the speech which dealt with the relief fund. The political references were made at the end of my speech, when I was appealing for support for my party, and I am properly reported in the newspaper I have mentioned. I do not want the hon. Gentleman to make out that I have criticised the Press reports—not at all. The Press report, the fullest report that I have seen, is perfectly correct, but a summarised report appeared elsewhere,
with editorial comment which sought to make out that a part of my speech referred to another part altogether. I do not at all accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures that in future I must take care to keep the subject of my speeches in separate compartments.

Mr. BOOTHBY: The Under-Secretary has raised this point and has accused me—[Interruption.]

Viscount WOLMER: Is it not in order for my hon. Friend to speak more than once? We are in Committee.

The CHAIRMAN: Is there any need to discuss this matter further?

Mr. BOOTHBY: The Under-Secretary raised this question; I did not. I merely ask to be allowed to reply, as he has made two speeches directed against me. I read a summarised report of his speech. In my speech I said there was only one inference that could possibly be drawn by a fair-minded reader from the report that I saw of the Under-Secretary's speech. I did not see the Under-Secretary's letter to the "Scotsman," but saw one that he wrote to the "Observer," which had commented very strongly indeed, along with the "Times," on the Under-Secretary's speech. I said in a subsequent speech that, so far as I was concerned, if what he claimed in the "Observer" was correct I entirely accepted what he said and would do what I could to put the matter right.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Then I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I did not see that, and I am very glad to have his statement now.

REVENUE DERPAKTMENTS.

POST OFFICE.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £995,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the salaries and expenses of the Post Office, including telegraphs and telephones.

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): I take it that hon. Members have availed themselves of the opportunity of perusing the Estimates. This supplementary sum has been necessitated by contingencies which could
not have been foreseen. If hon. Members will turn to pages 13 and 14 of the Supplementary Estimates they will observe that the chief item to which this Estimate refers is fully explained, and there is no need for me to detain the Committee long in giving further explanations. The first item, salaries and wages, is for a sum of £619,000 and explains itself. A sum of £420,000 is required for the purpose of meeting the continuation of the cost-of-living bonus at the 70 per cent. level. Speaking personally I think that that concession has been much appreciated by all the employés of the Department.

The CHAIRMAN: It has already been ruled that the question of the bonus must not be discussed. It is a matter for the Treasury. That was the decision reached a few days ago.

Mr. VIANT: The sum of £199,000 is required to meet extra charges in connection with the Post Office and postal telephones. That expenditure should be welcomed by the Committee, inasmuch as it is due in the main to an increase in circuits, or, to put it in another way, is due to an increase of business. Items under Subheads E1 and E2 are mainly due, again, to an increase of business, both by way of railway transit and road services. It means that we have to pay for railway transit a sum of £70,000 in excess of what was anticipated, and for road contracts an extra £25,000. Under Subhead K, purchase of engineering stores, extra expenditure amounted to £242,000, and in round figures £126,000 of that has been required for making purchases with a view to the expansion of the telephone service and as a result of helping in the relief of unemployment by increasing the underground or telephone ducts and such like in connection with the extension of the service. There was also a sum of £116,000 in reference to the purchase of stores which should have come into the previous year but which fell to be paid in April, and that of course has to be included in this Estimate.

Viscount WOLMER: The hon. Gentleman has given a figure of £126,000 which I understand covers two of the items under Subhead K. I should like to know the amount for each of the three items under that subhead?

Mr. VIANT: The total sum in respect of Subhead K for engineering materials is £242,000 and as I have already explained that is made up of two sums of £126,000 and £116,000. I think the Noble Lord has misunderstood me.

Viscount WOLMER: My point is that under Subhead K there are three items labelled (a), (b) and (c), but the hon. Gentleman has only given us, so far, two sets of figures. I want him to tell us how much is required for each of these three items.

Mr. VIANT: I will take steps to get those figures and let the Noble Lord have them later. The next important item is a sum of £52,000 which arises from compensation payable in connection with the explosion in High Holborn. The Committee will be interested to know that 200 claims are being paid, that about 100 have been rejected and that 50 are still on hand and the sum of £52,000 is an estimate of the maximum amount that will mature for payment under this head during the financial year. The next item is in respect of wireless broadcasting and the excess sum required is due to the fact that the number of licences in the year 1928–29 proved greater than was anticipated when the original Estimate was sanctioned. The Estimate was based on an anticipated issue of 2,590,000 licences but the actual number issued was 2,716,000, an excess over the Estimate of 126,000. That, I think, is a pleasing aspect of the Estimate and one which will be welcomed by the Committee. The issues during January, February and March were exceptionally heavy. All these various items which I have mentioned would bring the total Estimate up to £1,460,000 but we have Appropriations-in-Aid amounting to £51,000 for services rendered in connection with old age pensions and with widows' and orphans' pensions and other matters. The net amount of the Supplementary Estimate is, therefore, £995,000, and I have briefly outlined its main features.

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: I do not propose to wander into forbidden ground by seeking to debate the question of the 70 per cent. bonus. I quite understand the ruling of the Chairman on that matter and will obey it, but, as we wish to debate this Estimate, I think the
hon. Gentleman ought to supplement his explanation by dissecting this figure of £225,000 which appears under Subhead A 2. The Estimate states that this additional provision is required (1) to meet the cost of retaining the Civil Service bonus at 70 and (2) for a heavier increase than was provided for in postal and telephone traffic and I think the hon. Gentleman ought to tell us how this amount is made up in respect of these two matters. It seems that something more than bonus must have brought this £225,000 into account. Does this mean a heavier increase in the bonus or a heavier increase in the amount of employment than was anticipated, or does it mean that nothing at all was provided for in anticipation of the bonus being retained at 70 for the full year. I think the hon. Gentleman ought also to tell us now what was the amount which came into credit as the result of increased revenue. We require these figures as we proceed with this Debate and I hope he will not defer giving them until the end of the Debate.

Mr. VIANT: I really thought I had made myself clear in the first instance as to the amounts under Subheads A 2 and A 4.

Mr. SAMUEL: I am referring only to the £225,000, and I wish to know how that sum is divided between these various items.

Mr. VIANT: I think it would be better if the hon. Member waited until later on—

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: On a point of Order. May we have an opportunity of hearing what the Assistant Postmaster-General is saying?

Mr. VIANT: I was saying that I think it would probably be better if the hon. Member would give us an opportunity to get those details for which he has asked. In respect of the £199,000, which relates to the increase in the volume of postal and telephone traffic, a sum of £70,000 is in reference to postal traffic and a sum of £129,000 is in reference to telephone traffic. I hope that is clear.

Mr. SAMUEL: I only want an explanation about this total sum of £225,000 which comes under Subhead A 2. I leave aside altogether the sum of £394,000 under Subhead At I want to
know to what extent is the requirement in respect of Civil Service bonus an ingredient in that figure of £225,000, and whether the amount of that ingredient is the difference between the normal 65 per cent. bonus and the 70 per cent. bonus which was granted, or was anything at all provided for in the original Estimate in respect of the bonus? Does this refer to an increase in the ratio of the bonus only, or to an increase in the number of men employed and the amount of wages? We are also told that the increase given as (2) under this Subhead is more than covered by increased revenue and we should like to know what is the amount which came into credit as the result of increased revenue.

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Lees-Smith): I think the hon. Gentleman has not read the details of this item sufficiently fully. He will see that these two Sub-heads A 2 and A 4 are to be taken together, and the bonus relates only to the item (1) under Sub-head A 2, and to Sub-head A 4. The bonus for the London services and the provincial services together amounts to £420,000. The item (2) under Sub-head A 2 deals with an entirely different matter and has no connection with the bonus. It deals with the fact that there was an unexpected increase in postal and telephone traffic over the amount anticipated when the original Estimate was framed. That unexpected increase involved an expenditure of £199,000. The noble Lord, I think, asked how that was divided between telephone and postal expenses and the answer is that £70,000 relates to postal expenses and £129,000 to telephone expenses.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the Postmaster-General give me any information as to Sub-head K and as to how this sum of £242,000 is divided between items (a). (b) and (c)?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I cannot at the moment separate the items (a) and (b) of this Subhead but (a) and (b) together relate to the general policy of telephone development not anticipated when this Estimate was originally framed—both rural telephone development and trunk development. Items (a) and (b) together involved an expenditure of £126,000. The other item (c) relates to the carrying over of certain stores and involves an expenditure of £116,000 which makes the total of £242,000.

Viscount WOLMER: I should like to extend a cordial welcome to the Assistant Postmaster-General, as this is the first occasion on which he has made an oration here in that capacity. The Postmaster-General has told us more than once that he attaches great importance to House of Commons control over the Post Office, and, in fact, regards it as vital to Post Office efficiency. Therefore, I hope he will not resent it if we inquire closely into the items of this Estimate. I was sorry that he was unable to answer completely the questions which we asked him on the spur of the moment, but no doubt the complete information will be forthcoming before the close of the Debate. It is all the more important that we should take this opportunity of dealing with the Estimate because, as the right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted, the occasions on which hon. Members can examine the Post Office accounts and question the Postmaster-General on his administration are exceedingly rare and though we all have the pleasure of putting down questions to the right hon. Gentleman it is seldom that those questions are reached at Question Time. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make the fullest use of this opportunity to give us the information which we require. I hope hon. Members opposite representing the Union of Post Office Workers will also take this opportunity of voicing the point of view of the staff on the various items of Post Office expenditure.
8.0 p.m.
I should like to draw attention to several items which are of an exceptionally varied nature, and to ask certain questions about them, and I am sure that not only the Committee but also the public outside would like to have some information upon them. The Assistant Postmaster-General, in his opening remarks, grouped Items A.2 and A.4 together, and I think, if I may say so, that that was a proper way to present the Estimates. The method, prescribed by Parliamentary procedure, in which Post Office accounts are presented is designed to make it as difficult as possible for any ordinary Member of the House of Commons, especially anyone who has not had inside knowledge of the Post Office, to understand exactly how the money is being spent. The hon. Member is quite right to take A.2 and
A 4 together, because together they are a much better classification than they are separate. I asked him how much was for bonus and how much for postal and telephone traffic, and he has been kind enough to give me that information, which is that £70,000 is in respect of unforeseen increase in postal traffic, while £129,000 is in respect of unforeseen telephone traffic.
I notice that there is no mention of the telegraphs. That unhappy service continues to dwindle, and although my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), whose illness, I am sure, everyone in the House regrets very much, was successful in his last year in reducing the loss on that service by half, it is still continuing to lose, and has not lost less than we anticipated. Again, there is no increase in the Savings Bank, and that is an index of—

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is criticising what is not in the Estimate, and, if that is allowed, we may be here till a very late hour discussing what is irrelevant.

Viscount WOLMER: I was not criticising it in the least; I was merely drawing attention to the fact that this sum under Subheads A 2 and A 4, which cover all these services, is merely required, apart from the bonus, on account of unforeseen growth in the postal and telephone traffic. In regard to the postal traffic, which shows an increase of £70,000, I should be grateful if the Postmaster-General could tell us how that is actually made up. I think I am right in saying that the Christmas postal traffic this year exceeded all previous records, and also exceeded anticipations. Therefore, I presume that part of this Vote is on account of the extra Christmas traffic.
The Committee must be well aware that in handling Christmas traffic it is necessary for the Post Office to take on a great number of temporary men, and one of the questions that I would like to ask the Postmaster-General is this: Were these men paid at the same rate as they have been paid in previous years, or was any measure of the concession in regard to bonus, which strictly only applies to the established staff, was any concession analogous to that given to the temporary staff taken on at Chris-
tmas time? If the established staff of the Post Office have, at the taxpayers' expense, been given a little douceur of £420,000, I am sure we should all wish the temporary staff who come on at christmas time also to have some share of the largess that appears to be going about.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman how much of this increased postal traffic was due to the expansion of the air mails. That is a line of postal development which, in my opinion, has the greatest possible opportunities for development in the future. During the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon, the number of air mail services was doubled—it was raised from 20 to 40—and the traffic carried by aeroplanes, letters and parcels, increased over 100 per cent. I hope that part of the unforeseen expenditure has been due to a further extension of the air mail traffic, and I hope the Postmaster-General will be able to give the Committee an assurance that he will continue the policy of my right hon. Friend in furthering, by all means in his power, the development and extension of the air mail service.
None of these things can be seen from the accounts that are presented to the House of Commons. We can see them, of course, in the Commercial Accounts, which are published about 10 months late, and so are no good for the current year. It is, therefore, necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman for details on these matters. I do not think I ought to leave the question of the mails without asking the right hon. Gentleman if he can tell us anything further about mail bag losses. He was able to make the other day what I certainly thought a very satisfactory statement on that matter, and I am merely asking if he has anything to add and whether he has any reason to believe that the steps that he has taken, I understand, in carrying out the recommendations of the Committee appointed by the right hon. Member for South Croydon are proving effective.
Then we come to the £129,000 required on account of heavier telephone traffic than was anticipated. The Assistant Postmaster-General did not give us any details at all about that; he merely said it was on account of heavier traffic. We
are very glad to hear that the traffic has been heavier, but what sort of increased business does it mean? Does it mean that more exchanges have been opened, that the service has developed more quickly than was anticipated?

Mr. MIDDLET0N: Do you hope that?

Viscount WOLMER: We opened a great many more exchanges than were opened by any previous Government, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman has done his best to expedite the opening of exchanges. Or does it mean that he has been employing more operators per exchange? I hope he is not employing fewer operators per exchange. My recent public remarks on the subject of the Post Office, I need hardly say, have brought me a very voluminous correspondence, and it strikes me that almost everybody who gets a wrong telephone number has felt it his duty to write to me about it. But I have got the impression, in my personal experience, that the service in London during the last few months has not been quite as good as it used to be, and I should like to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that fewer operators have not been employed in relation to the number of calls than used to be employed, and that there has been no false economy in that respect.
Has the increase of £129,000 been spent at all in giving increased mechanical supervision to the automatic exchanges? As the Committee knows, engineers have to be in constant attendance in the automatic exchanges to deal with any fault that may arise or occur. Has the right hon. Gentleman found it necessary to increase the number of engineers in the automatic exchanges? Certainly, we have had far more complaints in regard to the automatic exchanges than we hoped would be the case when they were introduced. I am connected with an automatic exchange in my house, and the only time I really wanted it it has gone wrong. I am bound to say that it generally works right, but I have heard of hon. Friends who have chronic trouble with the automatic exchanges, and I should like to know whether the Postmaster-General is spending any part of this £129,000 in employing more engineers to supervise, maintain and keep in order the automatic exchanges throughout the country.
That leads me to this important point: If any part of this money is being spent in engineers, if the maintenance cost of the automatic exchanges is being raised, of course it may alter the whole question as to whether the automatic exchanges are a profitable proposition. The Post Office, when they instituted the system, hoped that it would be an economy, and I should very much like to know whether that view is still held. There is also another item on which I should like information from the right hon. Gentleman under this subhead, and that is in regard to the foreign trunk traffic. Has any important share of this £129,000 been due to the foreign trunk telephone traffic? Again, that is one of the directions in which some of the biggest telephone developments will lie. Hon. Members opposite are sometimes fond of asking what we did when we were in office. Practically the whole of the present foreign telephone developments took place under the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. When he came into office, in 1924, only four countries could be communicated with by telephone. When he left office there were over 20.
We then come to item E 1: "Conveyance of mails by rail, £70,000." This, I understand, is mainly on account of parcel mails. There is a remark in the details which I do not quite understand. It says that the increased provision is more than covered by increased revenue, but I expect that the Committee knows that the parcel post is run at a very heavy loss. When I was at the Post Office, I was told that there was a loss of over 2d. on every parcel that was carried through the post. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman will explain how he hopes to get the £70,000 back on an increased traffic, if the traffic is so unremunerative that it is possible to say that the heavier the traffic the greater the loss, and that there is a net loss of over 2d. on every parcel? One part of the parcels post which is not run at a loss is the cash-on delivery service, which was another reform instituted by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon. How much of this £70,000 has been spent in the development of the cash-on-delivery postal service? That service was started in 1926, and there was a great deal of doubt at the time in regard to its inauguration. One of my hon. Friends—I
think the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley)—was doubtful of the wisdom of the step, but it worked without a hitch from the beginning, and, by the time we left office, over 2,000,000 parcels a year were being carried by the service. Has there been any expansion of that service since then, and does any part of the £70,000 represent an increased growth of the service? There was a further extension of the service, which we called the railway cash-on-delivery service, dealing with parcels which were too heavy to go by the ordinary parcels post. That was started about 18 months after the other, and, when I left the Post Office, it was still in a fairly small way, not more than 50,000 or 60,000 parcels a year being carried, but, of course, the individual parcels were bigger and more important than the ordinary parcels that went through the parcels post. I should be grateful if the Postmaster-General could tell us anything about the extension of that service. A third development in regard to parcels which was started by the late Postmaster-General, was the raising of the weight of parcels from 11 lbs. to 22 lbs. The way that reform was carried out was that in the first instance—

The CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is now dealing with Post Office policy. He must keep to the Estimate, and I do not think that it is necessary to go into questions of policy.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely I am entitled to ask the hon. Gentleman who gave few details in his speech, how much of this money is being spent on these various services. The Estimate says that it is being spent on parcel services going by rail, and I am asking him whether any of it is being spent on the cash-on-delivery services. Surely the Committee are entitled to information on that point.

The CHAIRMAN: I agree with the Noble Lord, but I think he was going further than that.

Viscount WOLMER: I think I am entitled to ask questions on these points of detail. I hope that you will remember Mr. Young, how very rare are the occasions which we get for asking the Postmaster-General anything. Therefore, we must take full opportunity of these very rare intervals, if only to establish the principle of House of Commons control.

The CHAIRMAN: The opportunities for asking for information may be rare, but surely the questions which have been asked have been answered.

Viscount WOLMER: My questions are all confined to these Estimates. Now we are on the subject of parcel mails carried by rail, I would point out that there was one part of the statement which the hon. Gentleman made to the House the other day, in regard to mail robberies, which he did not deal with fully. Has he taken any steps for the further safeguarding of parcels that go by train? Probably every Member of the Committee has had experience of walking down a corridor train, and, in passing through the guard's van, finding the mail bags left there unattended. If we were not all extremely honest people, we should be tempted to carry them away. That is one of the matters to inquire into which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon appointed a Committee, and I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to give us some special information in regard to the robberies that occur on trains. I believe that a great deal of the dishonesty which has been attributed to the postal service relates to thefts that have occurred on railways, and not in the Post Office, but still, the Postmaster-General's responsibility does not cease when the bags are on the train.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: They are private enterprise trains.

Viscount WOLMER: That is a matter which the Chair will not allow me to discuss, but which I shall be delighted to discuss with the hon. Gentleman when it is in order. Passing to Item K, "Engineering Materials £242,000," I must say that the Committee have a complaint here. This Estimate covers three items—(a) the policy of extending telephone call office service, (b) acceleration of main underground telephone work, and (c) meeting a larger volume of stores, which is practically a re-vote. When I asked the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General to tell us, they were unable to say how this sum is divided between these three items.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I had better intervene to explain that the sum of £126,000 covers (a) and (b) together, and that £116,000 covers (c). I told the Noble
Lord that I cannot separate the £126,000 between (a) and (b), because they cannot be physically separated It is a common volume of stock, which can be used for one purpose or the other as required.

Viscount WOLMER: Then this leads one to a number of rather important points. The first point I should like to make is that the policy of extending telephone call office services to many villages and rural railway stations is not a policy for which the right hon. Gentleman was responsible, but, again, was one of the reforms carried out by the late Government. When we came into office not 16 per cent. of the railway stations had a telephone office, but if that work is properly carried out I hope nearly every one of the 1,400 railway stations in the country will have a telephone attached to it. If I remember rightly, the estimate for that work was considerably over £100,000. Can the Postmaster-General tell us whether the work of carrying telephones to every railway station is yet completed, and, if not, how much still remains to be done? That work ought to be nearly completed, because the orders for it were given last April; and if it is, then very little of the £126,000 can be for the acceleration of main underground telephone works in connection with the relief of unemployment. I have something to say to hon. Members opposite about that. As far as I am aware, this is the only reference in the whole of the Estimates to the relief of unemployment; and there is one extraordinary discrepancy which I think I am entitled to ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain. We have followed closely the efforts the Lord Privy Seal has been making to cure unemployment. On more than one occasion he has told us that within this financial year the Post Office was going to do something to help him. May I read a passage from a speech made by the Lord Privy Seal on 3rd July last year?

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is only entitled to deal with the amount of money for that purpose in the Estimates.

Viscount WOLMER: Am I not entitled to ask whether this description is accurate, in view of the announcement made by the Lord Privy Seal from the Treasury Bench last July?

The CHAIRMAN: That is a question which ought to be put to the Lord Privy Seal when he is here. The Postmaster-General is dealing with his own Supplementary Estimates for a specific purpose.

Viscount WOLMER: All I can say is, this shows how difficult it is to secure any effective control of the Post Office by this House. I am not allowed by the Chair, no doubt perfectly rightly, to go into that matter, and therefore I am unable to refer to the promises the Lord Privy Seal made in regard to steel telegraph posts. I should have liked to go into that question, but I cannot. I understand from this Estimate—because I can see no reference to it in this Estimate—that nothing has been done to further the use of steel telegraph posts as a means of helping the steel industry. I think that is not provided for in this Estimate, and therefore that part of the Lord Privy Seal's programme has gone by the board. I have another quotation from the Lord Privy Seal which is absolutely germane, and I do not think the Chair can say it is out of order. This is what he said on the 4th November last:
We have no right to say to a private employer 'You speed up' without making a similar appeal to Government departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th November, 1929; col. 666, Vol. 231.]

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord would be quite in order if we were discussing what the Lord Privy Seal had accomplished through Government Departments, but surely the Noble Lord, having himself been responsible in his day for Supplementary Estimates, must know that in discussing these Estimates we are confined to the purpose of the Estimates. These Estimates are for certain telephone services which have been provided, and we are not entitled to find fault with all the things that have not been done.

Viscount WOLMER: On a point of Order. The point is this. By cross-examining the Postmaster-General I tried to find out how the £242,000 is split up between (a) (b) and (c). He cannot tell me that. He only knows that £126,000 is divided somehow or other, but he cannot say how, between (a) and (b). I point out to him that item (a) must necessarily absorb a great deal of that £126,000, and, therefore, there is
very little left for item (b), which contains the only reference to unemployment in the whole of the programme. Surely I am entitled to draw attention to the fact that as recently as last November the Lord Privy Seal said the Government were going to spend £750,000 on telephone extensions?

The CHAIRMAN: That may be true, for all I know, but I presume that he did not say he was going to spend it by the 31st of March.

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, he did.

The CHAIRMAN: Even if he did, that is not the Postmaster-General's fault. The Postmaster-General has to deal with what has been done in his own Department, and in regard to this £126,000, while he says it cannot be broken up into (a) and (b), we know that it is for the purpose of extending the telephone service to villages and railway stations and the acceleration of main underground telephone works in connection with the relief of unemployment.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely I am entitled to ascertain how much of this money has been spent on relief of unemployment and to ask the Government for an explanation of this discrepancy between their expenditure and the statement of the Lord Privy Seal as to what they were going to spend.

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is entitled to ask how much of this money has been spent in the direction of providing work for the unemployed, but he is not entitled to enter into a discussion of what has not been spent in that direction.

Viscount WOLMER: There are so many omissions of what might have been done to help unemployment that the opportunities for discussion are a great deal curtailed, and, therefore, I will put my question to the right hon. Gentleman in this specific form. He says the £126,000 has been spent on (a) and (b). I say the whole of that money has been spent as a result of the programme of the late Government announced last Parliament, and not a penny of this Estimate is going towards the relief of unemployment, and that the statement made by the Lord Privy Seal on 4th November was a fraud and a sham; and there I
leave the matter. Then we come to item (c). There we have the very large figure of £116,000 for stores which were ordered by the previous Government but were not paid for before 31st March, and therefore fall into the Estimate this year. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman a specific question on a point which has recently been brought to my notice. The late Government introduced a new type of telephone instrument. I forget its technical name, but it is an instrument which a subscriber can speak into and hear with without having to use both hands. The late Government ordered 100,000 of those instruments, and they should have been ready early this summer. I am informed that those instruments have not been issued—that they are lying in the works, but have not been issued to the public. Even those subscribers who are willing to pay the extra rent of 10s. a year which is charged are finding the greatest difficulty in obtaining those instruments, and yet they are clogging up the works because they have not been issued. Is that information correct? It comes to me from a responsible source although I cannot vouch for it, but I am asking for information. I hope this matter will be looked into because, if it is true, it is a very bad case.
I now come to item E 2, the conveyance of mails by road (contract work). For this contract work an additional sum of £25,000 is required. I think that is a most extraordinary item to find in the Supplementary Estimates of the Socialist Government. The note to item E 2, says that this is
Provision for certain contract road services which it was anticipated would have been replaced during the year by departmental motor mail van.
What does that mean? Whereas the late Government was willing and anxious to extend the mail van service of the Post Office the Postmaster-General has been clinging to private enterprise, and, instead of employing Post Office vans, he has spent on these contracts £25,000 in order to pay private enterprise for doing this work. I am a strong believer in private enterprise, and it may be that the Postmaster-General was right, and that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon may have been too precipitate. I would like to ask what is the explanation of this item. May I draw
the attention of the Committee to the enormous possibilities of the Post Office in regard to this motor mail van business. The late Government installed over 2,000 motor mail vans and cycles, but the present Postmaster-General does not appear to be carrying out that policy. I think the Lord Privy Seal would be grateful if the Postmaster-General would increase the number of motor mail vans, because that would do something to employ more men in the motor car industry, which needs it very badly at the present time.
Now I come to Item L 7, the Holborn explosion, and the amount required for compensation is £52,000. I do not wish be go into that matter in detail, but I should like to ask if the right hon. Gentleman is taking any steps, and, if so, what steps, to try and prevent as far as possible a repetition of that disaster. The danger of gas explosions underneath the streets by electrical contact with Post Office telephones is, of course, getting greater every year, and, in view of this fact, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be able to tell us what is being done to prevent a recurrence of these accidents.
The next item I wish to mention is the sum of £38,000 for wireless broadcasting. The Assistant Postmaster-General told us that there are at the present moment 2,700,000 wireless licences, and I am sure every Member of this Committee is glad that wireless still continues to go ahead at the great rate that it has done during the last two or three years. The whole broadcasting service is, of course, a very great experiment. During its earliest years it was in charge of a purely private company, but during the last two years it has been in charge of a public utility corporation. I am not quite sure that the public is satisfied that the service provided by this corporation is better than the service that was provided by the company, but that is a big question, and I think the example of the British Broadcasting Corporation is very interesting but one that ought to be very carefully watched. Although we are voting the British Broadcasting Corporation £38,000 in this Estimate, we are really only voting them their own money. The commercial accounts show that the revenue of the British Broadcasting Corporation is somewhere in the neighbourhood of £800,000, and this Vote will
bring it up to nearly £850,000 a year. Of course, the State takes a very large share as well. The Postmaster-General charges 1s. 3d. for collecting every 10s. licence, and he charges a further sum by way of Entertainments Duty. I think I am correct in saying that he takes more than 2s. 6d. out of every licence, including the 1s. 3d. for collecting. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman in this matter is only the agent for the Treasury. I think this is the only opportunity we get for saying anything in regard to broadcasting—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is not the opportunity for debating that question. The rules on this question are definitely laid down, and any discussion upon broadcasting would be out of order and must be raised only upon the main Estimate or by other methods open to hon. Members.

Viscount WOLMER: As we are asked to pay £38,000 to the British Broadcasting Corporation for services rendered, are we not entitled to discuss those services?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: No, not on this Estimate, because this is only the conclusion of the matters dealt with in the original Estimate, and no new principle is involved.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: On a point of Order. I am not sure whether you are aware, Sir, that the Noble Lord has already been called to order seven times by Mr. Young, and I want to ask, if I may with great respect, how many times an hon. Member requires to be called to order before you ask him to resume his seat?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that those matters had better be left to the Chair.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: You mentioned, Sir, that we cannot now deal with the services covered by this sum of £38,000. May I ask what would happen if the Committee did not approve of this Vote?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot answer that question, it ought not to be addressed to me.

Viscount WOLMER: I am sorry to have transgressed beyond the Ruling of the Chair, but, having been invited more than once by the Postmaster-General to
exercise every opportunity of Parliamentary control and investigation, I have endeavoured to do so, and I apologise if I have got out of order in so doing. It is not easy to keep within the rules of order and at the same time to get all the information which I am sure the House and the country outside desires to have about the work of the Post Office and the great services which are attached to it.

Mr. BOWEN: I share the opinion of the Noble Lord that the Postmaster-General has insufficient opportunities for developing the case of the Post Office in this House, and I would suggest to the Noble Lord that he would help me considerably to have questions answered by the Postmaster-General if he could persuade his colleagues on the other side of the House to ask other Ministers fewer questions or fewer supplementary questions.

Commander SOUTHBY: Write him a letter!

Mr. BOWEN: I do not mind doing that, because it would bring revenue to the Post Office.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know what this has to do with the Supplementary Estimate.

Mr. BOWEN: I want to submit, with great respect, that it has a good deal to do with it, because, if you send a 1½d. letter by post, you make the Post Office pay, whereas, if you send postcards, you do not. I thought that the Noble Lord rather challenged me to intervene in this Debate, but that he felt very safe in doing so because he knew perfectly well that there were so many limitations on the Debate that it was not possible for me to enter into an argument with him. I suggest that the Noble Lord, in asking so many questions, has attempted a criticism of the Post Office because it is now administered by a Socialist Minister, but, in doing so, I think he must have forgotten that many of the things for which the Post Office is now responsible were due partly to his administration and that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson), as well as to the administration of Ministers who preceded him.
It is quite true that these Estimates do not help us very considerably in get-
ting to know precisely all the details which the Postmaster-General places before the House, or the totals which those details involve. I have been in the House but a very short time, but I have studied a good many of these Estimates from time to time, and I have never yet found that the Estimates of any Department give you precisely the thing that you want to know. For that a Socialist Government is not necessarily responsible. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nationalisation!"]. Nationalisation, as controlling the War Office, the Admiralty, and so on, can be brought into the picture, but I should very much like to see these Estimates given in more detail. The question asked by the Noble Lord with regard to the bonus related in some measure to whether the rates paid for casual workers at Christmas time had in them an element of the increased bonus, or the concession in regard to bonus which was made to the established classes. The answer, I suggest, is that, by maintaining for last Christmas the same rate—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member, I think, is quite aware that, by the desire of the Committee, a full discussion was allowed on this subject a few days ago, but there was a clear understanding that it should not be raised again on any of these subsequent Estimates.

Mr. BOWEN: I have no intention of doing that at all—

Viscount WOLMER: The Christmas work, which I think is what the hon. Member was discussing, does not affect the established staff, to whom the bonus applies, but chiefly temporary men, and temporary men are not covered by the bonus. Is not that the point?

Mr. BOWEN: The point put by the Noble Lord was as to whether the rates paid for temporary Christmas work had in them an element of bonus as a recognition of the concession made to the established staff. In so far as they were the same rates as were paid previously at Christmas, I presume that they had, but that does not enter into this case at all. The fact is that temporary rates are very low. They are higher than they were, as a result of representations made by my organisation to the administration
presided over by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon and by the Noble Lord. The rates, however, are still very low—too low—and I had hoped, therefore, that the Noble Lord, in dealing with these Estimates, would have made a suggestion as to where those rates could have been improved. He also referred to telephone operators, and asked whether more or fewer were employed now as covered by these Estimates. The answer must be that the number of telephone operators cannot be more, but must be less owing to the extension of automatic telephones. In so far as the automatic telephone services are covered by these Estimates, I was in sympathy with the Noble Lord when be said that he found himself in a difficulty in regard to the operation of the automatic telephone, but I think he made the dangerous admission that every time he went to it it went wrong.

Viscount WOLMER: No. The only time that it went wrong in my house was when there was a fire.

Mr. BOWEN: I do not want to repeat what I said the other day. The point that I am making is that I do not see how it was possible for the Noble Lord to make very much out of the development of the automatic telephone, seeing that he, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Croydon, claimed responsibility for its introduction. The Noble Lord asked whether it was profitable or not, but, surely, that is a matter which does not arise on these Estimates at all. The Noble Lord is very fond of quoting New York against London with regard to the telephone system, but I read in this evening's paper that:
New York is rapidly being placed upon the automatic system, and the system works well. It is hoped that the whole of the exchanges throughout the city will be automatic in a few years.
I am afraid, unless the Noble Lord wakes up, that he will find that a good deal of his case against the Post Office will have dwindled away. He chided us who are members of the Union of Post Office Workers as to whether, with regard to these Estimates, we were going to raise questions with which he was familiar. I rather thought he would have, borne in mind that there is not very much scope in this one page for raising staff questions. I will do my best, but I shall have
to keep my eye on the Chair. When the occasion serves, I shall be very willing to point to defects of the Post Office which are largely the creation of bad administration by Conservative Ministers in the past, but this is not the time for that. The Noble Lord congratulated him-self upon the success of the cash-on-de-livery system. I congratulate him, too. He congratulated himself upon the extension of rural telephones. I congratulate him too, because he and his right hon. Friend accepted the advice of the Union of Post Office Workers when he put that proposition to the Post Office. There are a number of other constructive propositions that we put to them which we are still waiting to see effect given to. I am glad to find the Noble Lord has not charged the Socialist Government with the Holborn explosion, nor did he say very much about the British Broadcasting Corporation, because, if he did, he would find that there would be a good many answers to a good many of the criticisms against the Post Office on the success of that undertaking.
The questions I would like to address to my right hon. Friend relate particularly to the conveyance of mails by road contract work. There is provision for certain contract road services which it was anticipated would have been replaced by Departmental motor mail vans. I do not expect my hon. Friend to give me a concise answer, but I would ask him to make an inquiry as to whether the policy laid down by the late Postmaster-General and Assistant Postmaster-General is working satisfactorily, whether he is continuing the policy which requires that before a contractor is displaced by a Post Office owned motor van there shall be shown a saving of expense, whether he is satisfied that such provisions in regard to the retention of any other contractors or in regard to any proposals that may be in mind for the opening up or sealing up of other contracts have taken into account the requirements of the fair wages Clause, and whether the Post Office insists that these contractors competing with the Post Office motor mail vans pay their employés a proper wage. That has a very substantial bearing upon the question of unemployment, about which the Noble Lord chided the Postmaster-General.
9.0 p.m.
I should also like to ask something in regard to Item K (b), where reference is made to works in connection with the relief of unemployment. Is it possible, by developing this telephone work, to restore to the service some of those thousands of labourers who were displaced as the result of the late Postmaster-General's policy? Can he bring some of them back? There are thousands of them. If the Post Office can now expand or accelerate its work in dealing with telephone operations and the laying of cables, these men should be given a reasonable opportunity. These points will give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making such inquiries as, I am sure, will lead to results indicating that it will be necessary for him, if progress is to be made in these things, to reverse part of the policy of the late Postmaster-General which led to the displacement of labour. If, in these Estimates dealing with engineering materials and the conveyance of mails by road, he can find work for these people who have been displaced and, at the same time, give an opportunity for the thousands of men who are engaged on part-time labour at very low rates of pay, he will have given the service a good deal to be satisfied with, and he will be able to show that the Post Office can substantially contribute to the difficulties of unemployment if it is given the opportunity.

Viscount ELMLEY: There are two points about which I wish to ask for information. I do so with the greater confidence because I remember that recently the Postmaster-General said that discussions about the Post Office did not imply that it was inefficient and that, as it was the property of the public, we had a right to expect from it a higher standard than from other concerns. The first point to which I want to draw attention is the item for £52,000 paid in connection with the Holborn explosion. The Assistant Postmaster-General indicated that this would be the maximum sum payable. I want to ask, further, what proportion is that sum of the total amount of damage that was done. As far as I remember, there was not very much blame attaching to the Post Office in connection with it and far more damage than £52,000 was done. I should very much like to know what proportion of that was paid by the
Post Office and, further, whether any gas, electric light or public utility company contributed.
The second point I want to ask about is under the heading of Appropriations-in-Aid. There is an item of £51,000, and I should like to know how that exact sum was arrived at and the sources from which it comes. For instance, I should like to know whether the Post Office has had to convey more mails from place to place than it originally contracted to do, and whether it has done any more work for railways than it has done in the past. I should also like to know whether any sites have been sold and whether they have received any further rent for Post Office premises which have been sub-let. I hope we shall be told that, if this sum has been arrived at in any of these ways, there are further ways in which money can be raised.

Mr. STUART BEVAN: I understand that, in respect to the damage done by the Holborn explosion, an arrangement was come to between the Post Office and the Gas Light and Coke Company under which, without prejudice, liability for the damage caused by the explosion was admitted, and admitted upon the terms that the Post Office and the gas company would contribute in equal shares to reimbursing the sufferers from the explosion the loss which they had incurred. That arrangement which followed upon the Home Office inquiry, which was a very prolonged and exhaustive one, was very creditable both to the Post Office and to the gas company. It was made some 12 months ago, it may be 10 months ago, and, though it was quickly brought about, the carrying into effect of that arrangement to which both the Post Office and the gas company pledged themselves, has been lamentably slow. We have now arrived at a date 15 months after the explosion, and I understand that many of the claims are outstanding, claims which have been lodged and have been under the consideration of the Post Office, which in the matter of this settlement appeared to be taking the leading part, though, no doubt, it has to confer with the legal representatives of the gas company. At this late date many of the sufferers, some of them quite small people who have suffered in their business, stand without compensation at all.
I should like to ask the Postmaster-General, and I hope he will be able to give me the information, how much of the estimated sum of £52,000 has at this date been paid? In the arrangement that was made that sum, whatever it amounts to, must be doubled, because I understand that the arrangement carried with it the liability of the gas company to contribute an equal amount, but from the information which I received—and I am in very close touch with the claimants in respect of the damage sustained in connection with this explosion—the sum which to date has been received amounts to nothing like £104,000. If the Postmaster-General would be good enough to give me the figure, I should be very glad to have it.
There is one further matter upon which I should welcome an assurance from the Postmaster-General. It is said that the course of litigation is slow. Be it so, I am not prepared to deal with that topic to-night. All I can say is, be the course of litigation as slow as it may be, it is nothing like as slow as the course of settlement upon an admitted liability. I ask the Postmaster-General to instruct those who are responsible for this settlement to proceed to settle without further delay and not to raise inconsistent and captious objections to claims. I realise full well that it is public money which is being applied to this settlement and due and full regard must be had to that fact, but when I find, as I find day after day, one claim put forward on certain grounds accepted and another claim put forward on almost identical grounds rejected or queried, I do ask the Postmaster-General to bring to bear his influence and his authority on those who are interested in this settlement to deal with it on broad and proper lines with due regard to public economy, but with equal regard to the just claims of those who admittedly have suffered from this explosion which took place as long as 15 months ago and who to-day stand without that compensation which has been promised to them.

Mr. F. F. RILEY: I rise with some diffidence to speak in this Debate, because I am an unpractised speaker, and I am not used to the Rules of the House. Bearing in mind the great difficulty which the Noble Lord had in keeping within the Rules of Order, I feel even
more diffident about it, especially as I hope to touch upon a few of the points which he made. The Noble Lord spoke about the question of stolen mail bags, a matter in which all of us have a great deal of interest, and he ventured the opinion that many mail bags were left unattended in course of transmission. He said that that was the responsibility of the Postmaster-General. However that may be in theory, we know that in practice a very large number of mail bags are left unattended. I do not think that we should add weight to the responsibility of the Postmaster-General in circumstances which he cannot avoid. I suppose the Noble Lord would not make a suggestion that a post office servant should be despatched always with a single bag.
With regard to the additional provision in Item "E 1" in which the sum set down is £70,000, the Noble Lord invited the Postmaster-General to give us some explanation of this Supplementary Estimate. I wish to add my voice to that of the Noble Lord in asking the Postmaster-General to give us some explanation unless there may be some difficulty of policy about it. I would suggest that one of the main features, perhaps the main cause of the increased expenditure on this particular postal service, is the very heavy fees which the Post Office has to pay for carriage. I suggest to the Noble Lord—he will know of course and will be able to correct me if I am wrong—that under the present system 50 per cent. of the postage on postal packages has to be devoted to cost of carriage which goes to the railway companies. I think that that is a matter which has a distinct bearing upon the item which has been mentioned. I should like, at any rate, to have some definite information about it if it is possible for such information to be given. I notice that in two classes A 2 and A 4 no great complaints were made about the postal section proper. That is a section which, year in and year out, has paid handsomely to the Post Office and the public, yet there is no special merit to be attached to that Department over the other Departments which have been mentioned and complained about by the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord spoke about the Savings Bank. I am not sure whether that was one of the points about which he was in difficulty. The hon. Mem-
ber for Crewe (Mr. Bowen) referred to certain action by the trade union which had led to an improvement in the service in other directions. The same group of people made recommendations or suggestions to the Post Office more than 20 years ago about the Savings Bank. It was not a Labour Postmaster-General who refused to accept those suggestions, or other suggestions put forward. He would not allow the people who were making the suggestions—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have re trained from interrupting the hon. Member because I thought that he was making a maiden speech, but I understand that that is not so. I cannot allow him to proceed further with that line of argument.

Mr. RILEY: I am sorry. I am innocent in all other directions. I was interested in the criticism which the Noble Lord made regarding the telegraph section. A good deal of criticism has been made against the telegraph section of the British Post Office, but I have never yet heard a reference to the extraordinary difficulties under which the telegraph section started, right from the time when it was taken over from the old company. It started with difficulties, and difficulties have been piled upon it year in and year out. I have never yet heard a reference to the subsidy which the British telegraphs—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must keep to the items in the Supplementary Estimate. He must not go outside those items.

Mr. RILEY: I understood the Chair man to rule that such a reference came in in connection with these Estimates, because it was concealed in items A 2 and A4. I was glad to hear the Noble Lord's criticisms. He has had a very wide experience of Post Office administration, and I hope that the Postmaster General will deal with all his criticisms.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: The amount that we are asked to vote is a very considerable one, £995,000, but, considering that it relates to the Post Office and the telephone department, I do not think that it is such a large amount, seeing that the Post Office is making a very considerable profit. We ought to go carefully into some of the items. With regard to the
conveyance of mails, I should like to know whether any of the extra expenditure is to be spent in giving added protection to the mails. Scarcely a day passes that we do not see some reference to the loss or robbery of mails. Is some of the extra money that it being spent on the conveyance of mails to provide more adequate protection? With regard to the policy of extending telephone call offices in villages and rural areas generally, nothing is wanted more. I put questions to the late Postmaster-General the right hon. Member for Croydon (Sir W. Mitchell-Thomson) when he was carrying out a system for the county of Essex, part of which I represent, greatly increasing the number of rural telephones and installing telephones at rural railway stations.
I hope that some of the extra expenditure in this Department—I believe that £126,000 is particularly devoted to extending the telephones—will provide a larger number of rural telephones, and that every rural railway station in the kingdom will be provided with a telephone. It is important for the farmers and for all of us. We are almost the most backward country in the extension of our telephone system. Any money that is spent in extending our telephone system is well spent, because it brings back a return in increased trade. I would ask the Postmaster-General to devote a larger amount of money for the providing of rural telephones. There have been large numbers of complaints especially with regard to toll calls in districts not very far from London, many of them rural exchanges and many of them out-of-date exchanges. The complaint has been as to inaudibility which is due, I suppose, either to the lack of current or to the fact that they have an antiquated machine at the exchange. I would ask the Postmaster-General to go into the question of these rural telephone exchanges, for they are becoming worse and worse. Very often you can hardly hear what the person is saying; no matter how clear or distinct he tries to be, it is almost impossible to hear.
The laying of underground telephone lines is most vital. I would draw attention to a case where wires went over a garage and the garage caught fire, and now the unfortunate man is being sued.
The other day the Postmaster-General refused to accept a majority verdict, and again the unfortunate man is to be put to the expense of the case being brought forward. The wires might well have been laid underground in front of the garage, and not over it. The man tried to insure the other day against further damage, but he was told that that was impossible because the garage did not belong to him and he could not insure somebody else's property. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, wherever possible, in order to avoid cases like this, will have the telephone wires laid underground, so as to avoid damage by fire or storm or by trees being blown down. Any expenditure on these lines is reproductive, giving employment to the unemployed and doing a vast amount of good.
In regard to the Holborn explosion, I should like to know whether the Postmaster-General is taking any steps to prevent similar occurrences. The reason for such an explosion is that the telephone lines are laid close to gas mains and electric light cables. In former days if there was a leakage in the gas main under an ordinary macadam road, the gas was able gradually to escape, but nowadays our roads are made of material that is imperviable to wet or gas, and the gas cannot escape and lies in pockets. When you have an electric cable close to the gas main and you have the telephone wires there, you run very great risk of an explosion similar to that at Holborn. I hope that the Postmaster-General will take due precautions against a repetition of such an explosion.
With regard to the last item, wireless broadcasting, that is becoming more and more popular. No less than 2,716,000 people have got listening sets, and it is becoming more and more important. The Postmaster-General should look to the direction of this service and see that broadcasting is run on absolutely nonpolitical lines, for we have had already serious objection raised to some of the things that have been spoken lately, such as those by Mr. Nicholson, to which great exception has been taken by many people in this country. I do hope that as there are so many people paying for licences, the right hon. Gentleman will see that this very important service is run on absolutely and strictly impartial lines.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: I had hoped to speak on the question of the Post Office on a larger scale one evening last week, but the inordinate eloquence of certain Members of the House, including the Postmaster-General and his votaries prevented me from making a speech that night. It was "roses, roses all the way," to the tune of "Great is the Postmaster-General, and the Secretary of the Union of Postal Workers is his prophet." It is a rather more gloomy matter to-night with all this criticism afloat. I put down a Motion to reduce this Vote by £100. I am perfectly prepared to withdraw that Motion if I am permitted to make a few remarks, and these are the remarks. I am speaking technically on the sum to be voted as Supplementary Estimate, and therefore I think I am in order. The point I wish to raise is the injustice of the treatment of the provincial towns and the rural districts as compared with London. You will see in this additional sum required that London is getting £225,000, while £394,000 goes to the provinces, but, comparing that with the total sum, the proportion is very different, and is something like 11 to 20. That is only an example which I have gathered from the statistics of the way in which everything has been sacrificed by the Post Office to the interests of the Metropolitan area. The whole countryside is being scamped in its services and generally ill-treated. The Londoner has his late post, and he is going to have a post office open all night—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the details of the postal system on the Supplementary Vote.

Viscount WOLMER: On that point of Order. Is not the hon. Gentleman entitled to urge that this £70,000 would be better spent in Oxford than in London?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think it is possible he might, but the £70,000 is not detailed here, and the hon. Gentleman was raising the question of later posts.

Sir C. OMAN: It is only an illustration of the way in which the countryside is being wronged compared with the excellent service given in London. In regard to salaries, the arrangements are of a similar sort. My suggestion has reference—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: With regard to the point of Order raised by the Noble Lord, I do not see the £70,000 here.

Viscount WOLMER: Before you entered the Chair the Postmaster-General explained these items under A 2 and A 4 which deal with the establishments. A 2 is £225,000 and A 4 is £394,000. He added them together and said that out of the total £420,000 is being spent in bonuses, £70,000 in extended postal traffic and £129,000 in telephones. That was the £70,000 to which I referred.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I think that is rather vague and indefinite.

Viscount WOLMER: It is all included.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not dispute what the Noble Lord said about the £70,000. The only point is that the hon. Member cannot discuss the details of the services.

Viscount WOLMER: Surely it is open to the hon. Member to argue that the money in question could be better spent in a different direction.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Not on a Supplementary Estimate.

Sir C. OMAN: I will give an illustration. These statistics of a department prove, like everything else with which I have to do in connection with the Post Office, the fact which no provincial Member will deny, that the provinces are being neglected absolutely and entirely. A town of 77,000 inhabitants has no post after 4 o'clock, whereas it used to have three posts.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman must wait until the Estimates come up. He cannot discuss that on a Supplementary Estimate.

Sir C. OMAN: I am afraid I, perhaps, have been getting out of order, and I must congratulate you, Mr. Dunnico, on your perspicacity in detecting it.
Decortications of the golden grain, Are set to lure the aged fowl in vain.

Mr. FOOT: I have had the opportunity to-night of hearing the Assistant Postmaster-General, who has already been congratulated upon his first appearance in that capacity. I certainly join in the congratulation, because I know it will be a great gratification in the town in which
I was born that one who is a fellow-townsman of mine should have been included in His Majesty's Ministry. He comes from a city which is not as great as some in riches, but which in fame is not second to any other. I am glad to have had the opportunity of hearing him deal with these Supplementary Estimates.
There are one or two questions I should like to put. I understand that there has been additional expenditure upon rural telephones. I would like to know what has been the cost to the Post Office authorities consequent on the recent storms. They were very heavy in my part of the country, and they must have put not merely a considerable burden on those who have houses and property, but involved the Post Office authorities in a heavy loss. It was very serious in the district in which I live, and I am sure the Committee would like to know what was the extent of the burden as far as the Post Office was concerned. Something has been said in the discussion as to the amount that has been spent on rural telephones. I have to express my gratitude to the Assistant Postmaster-General for the courtesy with which he has considered several cases I have put before him. I have no doubt my experience has been shared by other Members. It may be that in some instances we have not had all we asked for, but in every instance there has been an inquiry and, certainly, in a number of cases I have submitted the facilities have been granted. I have no doubt that in this Vote are included some of the out-of-the-way villages of which we Members who represent rural constituencies know something, where they have been cut off from ordinary communication with the country, and where new telephones and call offices are being established.
I have found one difficulty in relation to telephone sub-offices, and that is the difficulty of securing persons who will undertake to work it. I could not understand why that difficulty should arise until I was informed that the amount paid by the Post Office to anyone who undertakes to work a telephone sub-office is the handsome amount of one guinea per year. I hope the Assistant Postmaster-General will be able to give us some information on this matter. Take a Devonshire village, or a Cornish
village, and I suppose the conditions are the same in villages throughout the rest of the country, the claim is made that there must be constant attention from the 1st January until the 31st December, and I was astonished to hear that the only allowance made to the small shopkeeper for the work he was doing for the State during the whole 12 months was the sum of one guinea. In a little village in Cornwall, appropriately named Merrymeet, I found that the total sum paid for the telephone, for the Post Office, for the provision of the Post Office, and for the supply of pens and paper, came to the total of £2 18s. 4d. per month. I do not quarrel with that amount very much, but I should demur to undertaking the responsibility of looking after a telephone sub-post office from New Year's Day until the 31st December, with a constant call upon my attention and attendance, for a guinea a year. Perhaps the Postmaster-General will tell us whether he is satisfied that the State is dealing fairly with these little people who belong to no strong organisation.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is really discussing general policy.

Mr. FOOT: As you know, Mr. Deputy-Chairman, I am the most obedient and docile Member of this House, formidable as may be the appearance of the party to which I belong, and I was simply going to ask whether the sums paid in respect of the new offices which have been opened were adequate. I know that some part of this sum has been used for the establishment of sub-post offices. I will not pursue that subject further, except to suggest that no part of the expenditure included in this Estimate will be more welcome than that on rural telephones. If I am in order, may I express my approval of that expenditure. The backwardness of our country districts is something of which we ought to be ashamed. I had an experience in a Cornish village the other day. A family when in Canada heard every Saturday the results of the matches in the three football leagues. Now that they are living in a Cornish village of about the same size someone has to go on a motor cycle four miles to find what has happened in the local football league. The submission I make to the Postmaster-General is this, that without distinction
we in this House desire a revival of agriculture, and agriculture cannot be revived unless we satisfactorily tackle the question of rural telephones. That is one of the first necessities.
May I make this suggestion to the Postmaster-General, that instead of relying only upon representations which may be made by hon. Members interested in their constituencies there should be a survey of these conditions, and that upon that survey, in which the three principal parties should be represented, something might be done to secure that the money which is now being provided is put to the fullest possible purpose, and that other money may be provided as occasion arises. I also ask whether something can be done to meet the system of credits which now exist. When a telephone is to be established the local folk are called upon to give some guarantee. I understand that there has been a change of policy in this connection. I know that when people have put in a claim for a telephone exchange they have been asked to give a guarantee, which is sometimes a burden upon people who are already overburdened. I am glad to hear that this system is to be changed or revised. If the House can be told that a more generous policy is going to be established and that a village away from a large town is to have some recognition of its special claims without demanding a guarantee from a number of small folk, it would be unanimously received with gratitude by many people.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: As something like one-third of the membership of the Association which I represent is employed in the Post Office I feel that something should be said on their behalf in reply to some of the observations made by the late Assistant Postmaster-General. The Noble Lord began with an inquiry as to whether that part of the Vote which deals with salaries and wage's contained any evidence of expenditure by way of increased remuneration to temporary Christmas staffs, following upon the concession given to established civil servants in respect of bonus some little time ago. The Noble Lord who asked that question was for something like four-and-a-half years Assistant Postmaster-General. During that period four Christmases passed and presented seasons in which the Post Office had to engage temporary staffs on
a very large scale. The late Assistant Postmaster-General ought to know that temporary staffs are not paid on the basis of a basic wage plus bonus. For that reason the question, coming from the late Assistant Postmaster-General, was a confession of sheer ignorance of the Department over which he presided which ought never to have been made in this House.
On several other points in the Estimates the Noble Lord tried to minimise the provision that was being made by stressing the amount of work which had been done by the late administration. For example, he told us that when the late administration took office there were telephone call boxes at only 16 per cent. of the railway stations of this country, and he indicated that when the late administration left office that number had increased very considerably. He told us also that when the late administration took office telephonic communication was possible with only four foreign countries, whereas at the end of the late administration it was possible with no fewer than 20 countries. Accepting the Noble Lord's figures as correct—a very unsafe thing to do, because on another query he was wrong by no less than 100 per cent.—that meant that a tremendous amount of work, technical and otherwise, must have been done by the Post Office staff during the period of the late administration. Yet it is the Noble Lord himself who has occupied column after column in the newspapers attacking the very staff which has produced the figures that he himself quoted here to-night.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I did not hear the Noble Lord's speech, but it would not be in order to pursue that subject.

Mr. BROWN: I understand that you were not present when the Noble Lord made that point, but it was one of the very few points in regard to which the Chairman found the Noble Lord to be in order. I wish to say, on behalf of the Post Office staffs that I represent, that there is most profound resentment of the action of a Minister who occupied an important Government post—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question before the Committee is not the action of an ex-Minister, but this Supple-
mentary Estimate for the Post Office. I cannot allow any discussion of actions of ex-Ministers.

Mr. BROWN: If an ex-Minister puts to the present Minister questions which by their nature reflect upon the staff which is engaged on the items covered by these Estimates, cannot some reply be made on behalf of the staffs concerned?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member had better leave that to the Minister himself.

Mr. BROWN: In that case may I conclude my observations with the statement that, however legitimate the questions which have come from the ex-Assistant Postmaster-General may be—many of them were found to be illegitimate—I think they would have come with better grace from any other member of the late administration than from himself.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: There is an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the Vote. My complaint is that the Postmaster-General has not spent enough. I would refer the Committee to page 14 of the Supplementary Estimates and to Items A 2 and A 4, which relate to provincial establishments. It says there, "See explanation under Subhead A 2 above." I find that the additional provision is required for, among other things, "a heavier increase than was provided for in the volume of postal and telephone traffic," and it states that, "The increase under (2) is more than covered by increased revenue." My point is that the Postmaster-General ought to have arranged for larger development. He admits that because of the capital expenditure incurred the revenue has increased. Increased facilities have been given not only in the metropolitan establishment but also in the provincial establishment. As a provincial Member, I would press upon him very strongly that he badly requires to develop postal facilities in the rural areas.
We have to be very careful what we refer to in our speeches, but I believe that I am entitled to point out how the postal facilities in rural areas have gone down, and to show that the Minister, if he had expended more capital, would have got more revenue, and we in the rural areas would have had better postal
facilities by this time. Take the case of my own constituency. We had a sorting car which ran through from London to Elgin. The Post Office cut down expenditure and that car is now stopped in Aberdeen. I brought the master to the notice of the Postmaster-General and he told me that the reason for the change was the expense of running the car.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not speaking of the telephone system at all, but of some other matter.

Mr. SMITH: Of provincial establishments.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That subject cannot be raised in detail. These are only Supplementary Estimates. General policy has to be discussed when the main Estimates are before the Committee. When Supplementary Estimates come forward, discussion should be confined to the particular items referred to.

Mr. SMITH: We have had the fact stated that by greater capital expenditure greater revenue accrues to the Post Office. Surely I am entitled to show that if more than £394,000 had been spent on the provincial establishments, we could have had a better result?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue that.

Mr. SMITH: Then I am very sorry. Let me refer to the item relating to engineering materials. I would like some information regarding Subhead B and the acceleration of underground telephone works in connection with the relief of unemployment. It seems that we should have the Lord Privy Seal here instead of the Postmaster-General. Surely we shall be allowed to discuss the question of unemployment in connection with this item?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question which the hon. Member is entitled to discuss is whether or not this money shall be spent for the purpose named.

Mr. SMITH: But surely—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am quite prepared to allow a certain amount of liberty and of latitude, but hon. Members must realise that there are limits.

Mr. SMITH: It seems an extraordinary thing that reference should be made in the Estimate to this item of main underground telephone works as being "in connection with the relief of unemployment." I come from a part of the world where underground wires are very much needed because every winter snowstorms sweep away the overhead telephone wires, and surely I am entitled to suggest that the Postmaster-General might spend a little more money for the relief of unemployment by increasing the number of underground wires in Aberdeen. In regard to Subhead K, which deals with engineering materials, I should like to ask if we are to have automatic exchanges in the rural areas or not. I find that in many cases hi my own constituency the ordinary exchanges are being installed in the rural areas instead of the automatic exchanges, and I wish to ask the Postmaster-General if he is spending this money on automatic exchanges or on the continuance of the old exchanges, which are so unsatisfactory, especially in the country districts. Also with regard to this large amount for engineering materials, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to have any of these materials forwarded to Aberdeenshire in order to obviate delay in connection with new exchanges. I find that it is often necessary to wait for more than six months, and when I raised the matter I was told that the reason for the delay was in the engineering department and in the difficulty of getting the necessary materials.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I rise to reply at this stage because so many questions have already been asked that I should like to deal with them while I can bear them in mind, and I hope that some of the points which I shall mention and which are ancillary to the questions already raised by hon. Members, may anticipate further questions which other hon. Members may have in mind.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: Will there be a further answer later on, as I understand a number of my hon. Friends still wish to speak on this Estimate?

Mr. DIXEY: Some of us have been sitting here for a considerable time. Do I understand that this is an effort to closure the Debate or are we to have the privilege of raising other questions afterwards and getting a further reply?

Sir K. WOOD: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he would answer further questions later on.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: On a point of Order—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: There is no point of Order.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SAMUEL: We know and appreciate the courtesy of the hon. Gentleman the Minister and we sympathise with him when he says that he cannot deal with a large number of questions all at once. On the other hand, I think he ought to give us an assurance that either he or the Assistant Postmaster-General will reply at a later stage to the further questions which hon. Members may wish to put on this Vote. I do not suggest any undertaking but I ask at least for a concession that there shall be no closure of my hon. Friends.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: It is not intended to closure the discussion—

The DEPUTYCHAIRMAN: I must preserve the independence of the Chair and I would point out to hon. Members that the question of the Closure is not one for the Minister but for the Chair.

Sir K. WOOD: Surely the Chair is not concerned with the question of the Closure, unless the Closure is moved?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The implication was that some attempt to prevent hon. Members exercising their right of Debate would be made. That is a question which rests with me, and not the Minister.

Sir K. WOOD: With all respect, I submit that unless the Closure is moved by some Member of the Committee, the Chair is not concerned with the Closure. I think that the Minister, for his own part, is quite willing that further questions should be answered later on.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I wish to make it perfectly clear to the right hon. Gentleman that the implication was that certain Members entitled to speak would be closured, and I wish to make it perfectly clear also that the question of the Closure is one to be decided by the Chair.

Sir K. WOOD: But only when the Closure has been moved.

Mr. E. BROWN: May I put it to you, Mr. Dunnico, that the Closure is a Motion which may be moved either by a back bencher or from the Front Bench, and, surely, the Postmaster-General is entitled to express the Government's intention of moving the Closure?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The question of preserving the rights of Members of this Committee is a question for the Chair alone.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I hope that when I have answered the questions which have already been put to me, the Committee will find it possible to allow us to have this Vote in a reasonable time, and we shall not move the Closure if we are allowed to have it within a reasonable time. Some of the questions addressed to me by different hon. Members relate to the same matters and I take the opportunity of dealing with those together. I was asked whether the increase in postal traffic is due to the Christmas pressure. It is partly due to the Christmas pressure, because, as the Noble Lord has said, last Christmas was a record in that respect. The increase in the bonus does not apply to men employed for a few days or for a fortnight at Christmas time, but, according to the Treasury's authority, is confined to the permanent servants of the State. With regard to the rural telephone, broadly, the position is this: Within the last six months, or perhaps a little more, 3,200 rural telephone call offices have been opened, and there are a large number of others which have been authorised and others are under consideration. In answer to the question about railway stations, telephones are now fitted at about 1,400 rural railway stations; that is to say, that the rural call offices have been increased by about 50 per cent. during the last six or seven months, and we have followed out what has been explained as the policy both of this Government and of the last.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: How many more stations are there still to have telephone exchanges put in?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In the neighbourhood of 500, or perhaps 600. I think there are about 2,000 stations altogether, so that leaves 500 or 600 which are not yet provided. One or two hon. Members—

Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us if he intends to instal telephones in every station?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not in a position to say that I intend to instal the telephone in every station, or indeed in every post office, because we have to take into account the cost on one side and the usage of the telephone on the other, and come to a decision which takes both of those factors into account, but we have installed the number I have mentioned, and there is a large number of others under consideration. When they have been installed, I should take into account naturally what further steps were to be undertaken.

Major OWEN: Where it has been decided that there is to be no call office at a country post office, will the hon. Gentleman in that case agree to put a telephone at the local station?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I could not give a general undertaking of that kind. If there were no call office at the village post office, then on the question whether you would put it there, you would have to take into account the question of cost, the use of the machine, the time per day during which trains were running, and questions like that, which must be decided as each case is raised and cannot be decided by a general statement across the Floor of the House. In regard to automatic telephones, we are proceeding to instal them in the villages as rapidly as possible. There are altogether 260 automatic exchanges, and of these at present 92 are in the rural areas. I was asked by more than one Member—

Mr. R. W. SMITH: Is it the hon. Gentleman's policy to instal automatic rather than ordinary telephones?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes, it is our policy to favour the automatic as against the manual telephones, especially in rural districts, because in the rural districts with quite a small number of subscribers the automatic gives you a full night service and a Sunday service, which are not available with a manual exchange until there are 20 subscribers at least. The questions that have been put on the air mail I can answer very broadly in this way. The air mail has in fact rather exceeded the expectations that were formed in regard to it some years ago. The air mail to
India was opened in April last, and at present, speaking very broadly and without figures in front of me, the broad achievement of the air mail is that it carries, all told, about 5 per cent. of the total letter and parcel traffic between India and this country.

Earl WINTERTON: And the percentage is growing, I suppose?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Yes. The late Assistant Postmaster-General put me a rather puzzling question as to how it was that the parcel post is showing an increased revenue in the Estimates, when, as a matter of fact, there is a loss upon every parcel carried. That part of the Estimates refers only to our transactions with the railway companies. As the Noble Lord is aware, the bargain with the railway companies is that they obtain 40 per cent. of the receipts on parcels which they carry by rail. All that these Estimates show is that as a result of an increase in the parcel post we are obtaining a larger revenue from the remaining 60 per cent. Nevertheless, we do involve ourselves in a loss, because the other part of the work necessary to carry the parcel post does entail a loss of about 2d. a packet.
The questions that I have been asked with regard to mail robberies I will not answer with any very great fullness. I may say that the reforms which have been suggested by the Committee to which the Noble Lord referred are now being carried out. They are being very actively introduced, and they will be completed in a comparatively short time, but as to the actual nature of those reforms, I would prefer not to make any statement here. I have been asked some questions about the new single-handed telephone and I was asked whether it was true that the Post Office was holding up the supplies of these instruments. There have been certain statements of that sort which have come to us from various parts of the country—complaints and rumours that some obstruction is taking place. Whenever those complaints have come, we have immediately sent to the surveyor in the area concerned and asked what grounds there are for them, and in all these cases the answer has been that there is no delay whatever in providing this new telephone where it is asked for, but that there is a certain delay in
delivery. As has been stated, 100,000 were ordered, but they are made by only one firm, and, therefore, we cannot provide them more rapidly than that firm is able to give us delivery.

Viscount WOLMER: Is it untrue, then that the firm which is making them is lumbered up with instruments, of which the Post Office will not take delivery?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: That statement is untrue. I was asked certain questions about the licence fee for the work that the Post Office does on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation. Out of the 10s. which is paid for a licence to the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office take 1s. 3d. for the expenses which the collection of these licences entails. The expense to the Post Office is not very far from 1s. 3d. Not very much profit is made out of this part of the transaction. I would point out to the Committee the remarkable fact that, whereas this Estimate was founded upon the assumption that the rate of increase of broadcasting licences to listeners to the programmes would be at the rate of last year, the number of licences for which fees are paid increased so unexpectedly in the first three months of the year, that this Supplementary Estimate has been needed. One of the causes of that increase is that the unlicensed sets are being dealt with, and a great many more licences are taken up, not only because of the prosecutions that are reported in the papers, but because it is known that the Post Office detecting agency for this purpose is at work. It is that work which is partly responsible for this 1s. 3d. fee, and is part of the justification for the payment which is made to the Post Office for this purpose.
Finally, I pass to a number of questions about the Holborn explosion. We have taken a number of precautions, of too technical a character to be explained here, for ventilating shafts and have made arrangements for pumping foul air out of the tubes, while a number of appliances, which our chief engineer has devised for detecting any leakage of foul air, have been installed, so that I may say—

Viscount WOLMER: All over London?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: All tubes of this class, and, in cases where these
appliances cannot be installed, the tubes are being filled up, so that I may say that precautions are being taken to make any such explosion exceedingly unlikely in future. One or two hon. Members asked questions as to the compensation for damage. I have not the exact figures, but this is the position, as I can broadly state it. The Commission of Inquiry which was founded to investigate the explosion, found that it was partly due to certain Post Office workings, because of the use of a lighter and for other reasons; and they also found that a leakage of gas was taking place in the mains of the Gas Light and Coke Company. The Commission made no legal statement about the position, but their findings rather suggested that there was a responsibility on the Post Office, and a responsibility on the Gas Light and Coke Company, both of whom must be classed together if the matter were taken before a Court of Law. There were heavy claims from third-parties—from the tradesmen whose premises were rendered inaccessible for, I think, several months, from public authorities like the Holborn Borough Council, and the two main parties, the Post Office and the Gas Light and Coke Company, came to an agreement that they would share the expense involved in meeting the claims of those third-parties. I should have explained that these are not the only expenses involved. There are other expenses in addition to those in this Supplementary Estimate. There are the expenses in which the Post Office itself was involved—this tube was blown up—which will be met out of the ordinary Post Office Vote. Although much of the work has been done, it has not been necessary to introduce a Supplementary Estimate, because a large part of the work has been done with implements which have been taken out of store and therefore have not necessarily to be accounted for now.
The third-party claims, for which the two authorities are responsible, are roughly estimated to amount to about £104,000, and the Post Office share is about £52,000. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn (Mr. Stuart Bevan) complained that there had been great delays in meeting the claims. There are 100 claims which were not met because the Post Office and the Gas Light and
Coke Company held that the claimants had no legal ground for their claims, and those I am not dealing with; but of the claims which have been admitted, my broad recollection is that there are only 50 which have not yet been met. The sum paid out is comparatively small in proportion to the total of £104,000, because some of those 50 are very large undertakings, great public authorities whose claims amount to several thousand pounds. From inquiries I made two or three weeks ago, I derived the impression that every possible expedition had been used in meeting these claims, but I have noted the complaint of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I will see whether it is possible—if it be necessary—that the remaining claims can be more quickly dealt with.

Viscount WOLMER: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much has been paid out?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The sum is small. The sum paid up to the moment is £18,000.

Viscount WOLMER: Out of £104,000?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Out of £104,000.

Mr. S. BEVAN: Is that the joint contribution—£9,000 from the Post Office and £9,000 from the Gas Company?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No, I think the £18,000 is our share out of the £52,000; but I may perhaps explain that that is not a proof of slowness, because that £18,000 has met the larger number of the smaller claims—those of the tradesmen. The reason the, sum outstanding is large is that we have larger potential claims to deal with, such as that of the Holborn Borough Council, which is over £40,000, that of the Charing Cross Electricity Supply Company, and those of the Metropolitan Water Board and other public or public utility authorities I think I have now answered most of the questions put to me.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I wish to refer to one or two matters which have not been mentioned by the Postmaster-General. Before doing so, I should like to associate myself with what has been said by the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) as to the courtesy with which the Post Office have dealt with matters in my own constituency. I am speaking
from my own experience, and I think that my experience in dealing with the Post Office is rather more than other hon. Members, because in the constituency which I represent storms have such a great effect in interrupting Post Office communications. In all the representations which I have made to the Post Office I have been met promptly and courteously, and for that I wish to thank the Postmaster-General. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to a matter of considerable importance to the whole country. It has been mentioned in the course of this Debate that the rural telephones are of great importance to agriculture, and we all know that that is so.
There is another matter of great importance to agriculture, and that is the parcels post, more especially so far as it deals with small articles of agriculture such as butter and eggs. I would like to refer to the way in which eggs are carried. In the old days of the parcels post eggs used to be carried in baskets. The parcels post is now carried in bags, with the result that parcels of eggs packed in cardboard are of often very badly damaged. There are so many complaints about this matter that it has almost stopped the sending of eggs by parcels post. Many packages sent by parcels post are sent in a firm basket and obviously in the case of large and heavy packages which are hoisted on board a boat or put into a train or roughly handled there is far less danger of damage to the contents than if those parcels are sent in a canvas bag the result of which is very well known to those who try to send eggs from a distance. I ask the Postmaster-General whether it would not be possible to introduce a system of baskets again, particularly in those districts from which large quantities of eggs are sent, and at the same time see whether some smaller charge could not be introduced for the carriage of eggs. By that means a great opportunity would be given to those in outlying parts of the country to send their eggs in with advantage and with increased safety, whereas they are now badly handicapped by the amount of damage that is done to the parcels in the post.
With regard to the conveyance of mails by road by contract, I want just to say a word. Some little debate has taken
place earlier in the evening on this matter, but I would ask the Postmaster-General to remember, if he is thinking of substituting Post Office vans for contractors' carts in some of the outlying parts of the country, that he may do a great deal to interfere with people travelling about the country who are now able to get a lift in a contractor's cart, while they would not be able to get a lift in a Post Office van. I think that this matter might be borne in mind, particularly in regard to outlying parts of the country where there are not the ordinary means, such as omnibuses, by which people can get about, but where nevertheless long distances have to be covered, and people rely largely on getting a lift in a contractor's cart which is carrying the mails.
Passing to the question of rural telephones, I should like to ask the Postmaster-General if he can inform me as to a matter which I have had the greatest difficulty in understanding. In some cases a guarantee is asked for in the country, while in other cases no guarantee is asked for, when a public telephone call office is opened. I am unable to ascertain on what basis the Post Office works in that matter. In one case in a county with which I am acquainted, a guarantee was asked for and was given by the county council, and, after two or three years' correspondence, the Post Office have been good enough to relieve the county council of that guarantee. In another place a circuit has been opened, with call offices, without a guarantee being asked for, while in yet another place a guarantee is being asked for which is entirely holding up a very necessary rural telephone service. In that particular place we are endeavouring to get the doctor and the lifeboat on to the local circuit, but we are told that we cannot have the circuit connected, although the main wires are quite close, unless we find eight subscribers at £8 apiece, an extraordinarily difficult thing to do in a poor country district. I would say to the Postmaster-General with regard to rural telephones generally, that he has to advertise his wares, to push his wares, rather than allow these things to stand in the way of the expansion of the use of the telephone.
In that connection there is another matter which I have already pressed on
the Post Office, and that is the importance of having sound-proof cabinets in the public call offices. It is perfectly ridiculous to put up a public call office in a country post office and then expect the public to go in and have their private conversations in the shop, for the whole countryside to know what is going on. How can you expect anyone to go in and spend 6d. in order to have their private conversations overheard? One knows that it is hard enough in the country to keep anything private, and, if one cannot make a bargain about a cow or a horse or anything of that kind over the telephone without it being overheard, people will simply not use the telephone. Within the last year I know of one circuit which has been opened with silence cabinets installed, and another where they have not been installed. Again I ask, on what basis does the Post Office act? I am told that it costs money. Of course it costs money, but it does not cost very much, and, if you do not spend that initial capital on silence cabinets, you will not get your return in revenue. It works out in the end, but, in order to push the telephone service, it must be made convenient and attractive to the public, and I should like to urge this with all the force of which I am capable on the Post Office, who, as far as I have been acquainted with them under their present control, are inclined to be receptive of new ideas.

Mr. HURD: There is one matter in connection with this Estimate to which I desire to call the attention of the Postmaster-General, and which has not been referred to in the Debate so far as I know. Item K deals with one aspect of it. In my part of the country we have great difficulty with the engineering section of the Post Office Department, arising from extraordinary delays in getting repairs made to the telephone. That was brought to the notice of the late Postmaster-General, and, after much trouble, we got some rectification. Of course, the recent storm has caused delays of an abnormal type, but quite apart from the storm, there seems to be some curious inability of the engineering department to make anything like a rapid and efficient repair of these ordinary breakdowns, which will occur in the best telephone system. From my experience there seems to be a curious detachment
between the engineering and the administrative sections of the Post Office, a curious break somehow or other in the reporting of defects and getting them remedied.
I should greatly appreciate it if the Postmaster-General would look into the matter and see why we in Wiltshire have such extraordinary difficulty in getting repairs done in a reasonable time. It is a serious matter when these delays occur, because we have an entirely new system coming into force now—the National Marks scheme. Unless we have telephonic communication between the individual farmer and Hungerford, where the National Mark system co-ordination takes place, a man's egg trade may be completely lost. He does not know the current price. He does not know any of the difficulties that have arisen. We are dependent more and more in the country districts on the telephone. My own son was for three weeks without the telephone. Trade necessities arising in agriculture should really be met by some survey of the question of delays in the engineering department.
I should like to pay a tribute to the Postmaster-General for the kindness with which he intervened to save a beautiful section of my Division. The engineering department was set visibly to work by someone to put a hideous set of poles up a beautiful hill leading to Savernake Forest. I called the hon. Gentleman's attention to it, and he immediately got to work and after spending a day or two in making personal inquiry he had the work done in such a way as to preserve the beauty of the hill instead of ruining it. I should like to congratulate him upon the expenditure of money on brightening post offices and encourage him to go on with the work. I should like to invite him to my constituency to see many offices which require a great deal of brightening. The rural telephone problem has really become more and more necessary to rural areas and, if the hon. Gentleman thought any service could be rendered by calling into counsel one or two members from each of the three parties who have special knowledge of rural conditions, and would be able to make suggestions on a non-party basis as to how this rural service might be developed, I am sure my party would be pleased to co-operate. We lay the
greatest stress upon the importance of the development of the rural telephone service and we shall be glad if he will encourage it in any way in his power.

Miss WILKINSON: I wish to bring before the Committee a matter I have been asked to raise by a number of constituents and others. There is an item of £38,000 for wireless broadcasting, and it is stated that the increase is off-set by an increase in licence fees. The increased popularity of broadcasting means, after it has been in operation for some time, a revision of general policy from time to time by the Postmaster-General. I should like to ask him whether he is satisfied with the general policy that is being-pursued and the service that is being offered to the public. I do not wish to criticise the British Broadcasting Corporation. I think the service it has rendered is excellent. With regard to Sunday broadcasting—

The CHAIRMAN: That does not arise on this Estimate.

Miss WILKINSON: I want to suggest that if we could have an improvement with regard to this matter that I want to bring before the Postmaster-General the increase, instead of being £38,000 might be £128,000. Am I not in order?

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Are we to understand that the Postmaster-General is responsible for the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Lady was raising a point of Order, and I was listening to her. This particular part indicates that there has been a return to the British Broadcasting Corporation owing to an increase of licences.

Miss WILKINSON: The point I want to put before you, Mr. Young, is to ask whether it would not be in order to discuss a matter in which a very large number of the citizens of this country are interested, and in regard to which I wanted to urge upon the Postmaster-General that it would lead to a very much larger increase from licence fees.

The CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Lady must await the main Vote for that purpose. At the moment, we cannot discuss the policy of the British Broadcasting Corporation, but only the increased amount received from licences
causing increased payment to the British Broadcasting Corporation.

Miss WILKINSON: I wanted to raise tht question of Sunday broadcasting, but, with your permission, I will raise it later.

Major ROSS: I want to open a rather fresh field for the consideration of the Postmaster-General in respect of the Estimates which have been put before us. There is one part of the Postmaster-General's administration on which his eye rests less frequently than on those parts which are closer to headquarters. I refer to Northern Ireland, which it is quite as much his duty to look after as any other part of the system which he administers. We have before us to-night in Items A 2 and E 1 allusions to increases of traffic—an increase in the volume of postal traffic and also an increase in the volume of parcel mails. The heavier traffic, both in mails and in parcels, to Northern Ireland has this effect, that it generally tends to delay. Mails have to be got from the train to the boat, and later from the boat to another train, and, in the case of my constituency in Londonderry they may have to cross a town as well. Therefore, any increase may tend to delay, and this money, or part of it, is no doubt spent, or should be spent, in making efficient arrangements in order to avoid undue delays in connection with the mails to Northern Ireland. I would like to know whether this is so, and what arrangements have been made. Again and again, I believe 17 times since June, the mails from Kingstown to Belfast have missed the connection. Those mails have been delayed and have had to be delivered by some inappropriate post.
As to another route by which mails and parcel mails are taken from the North of England, the Heysham route, the boat is supposed to get in at half-past six, and it is of great importance that it should get in approximately at that time or it means delay. The Heysham boat has regularly been missing the first delivery which it is scheduled to catch. Anyone carrying on business with the North of England is seriously handicapped by such delay. The further west you are in Northern Ireland the more you are affected by these delays. I should be glad if the Postmaster-General could tell me whether the delay is due to the increased volume of letter and parcel traffic,
as well it may be, or whether it is due to some other cause. It is very difficult to tell which it may be. I should like to know what arrangements are being made to deal with these things, and whether it is proposed to put on, as I understand has been suggested, a sorting van on the train from Dublin, which might shorten the time of delivery at the other end, or whether, as I would suggest, it might be better to run through mails as far as possible by Larne and Stranraer. I understand that the complaints as to mails missing their connection are much rarer by the Larne-Stranraer route than by Kingstown or Heysham.
There must be, so far as I can see, a definite discrimination against the Northern Ireland area in connection with the extension of rural telephones. I should have supposed that in spending the sum of £126,000 in extending telephone call offices to villages and rural railway stations, the development of a wholly undeveloped area or an under-developed area such as Northern Ireland would have been one of the prime objects of the sum of money which we are asked to vote. We cannot expect people to get the habit of using a telephone until they have got accustomed to it, until they have seen it in the local post office and have had an opportunity of using it. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton), although I do not propose to repeat his arguments, as to the difficulty in a poor agricultural district of getting a guaranteed number of subscribers. It is very hard to get the telephone habit started there, but when it does start it comes with a rush.
The telephone call office is the poor man's telephone, and I would ask the Postmaster-General to give a much wider extension to the system in Northern Ireland. Several hon. Members have said that the English telephone system in the rural areas is about the worst in Europe. I disagree with them strongly, because the English system is twice as good as that in Ireland. From the figures which I have obtained from the right hon. Gentleman, the number of persons per telephone in Great Britain is 24 and in Northern Ireland 56. Therefore, the telephone is only about half as much developed in Northern Ireland as it is in England
and Scotland, including the waste spaces, if I may use the term, in Scotland. That shows the urgent need for further development in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland about one-third of the rural post offices and the rural railway stations have telephones. There are even railway junctions which have not got telephones. The figure I have given is about half that in England. In my submission it is a matter which should be set right. Now we come to what is authorised as the programme. Under this Vote there are 124 new stations authorised for Northern Ireland. Even this leaves a large number still unprovided for, but I am anxious to know how many of these have been actually completed and opened, because by December last there were only 38 new telephone stations opened in the area, out of 124 which had been authorised. In all, 3,200 had been opened and yet this, which is the most undeveloped district in the whole of the country has been given only 38 of these.
Let me contrast that with an English county. A question was asked by one of my hon. Friends who represents a constituency in Devonshire, covering about the same period as that with respect to which I asked how many were opened in Northern Ireland. In Devonshire alone, 76 new stations had been opened. That is twice as many as the total for the whole of the six counties in Northern Ireland. I am not in the least degree criticising the right hon. Gentleman for having opened 76 stations in Devonshire, which I am sure were necessary, but I do criticise him with all the power I can in opening that proportion in an English county and only 38 in the whole of the six counties in Northern Ireland.
I pass on to K 3, which deals with the question of work for the Post Office which has been accelerated with a view to the relief of unemployment. Of course, one could quite sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman if in his anxiety to relieve unemployment he should tend to be rather more concerned with unemployment in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland, because unemployment in Northern Ireland is not given in the list over here. There is a separate set of figures, but, still, the right hon. Gentleman's duty as the authority for Post Office work is just as great to those who
are unemployed, and who might have some employment in work for the Post Office, in Northern Ireland, as it is to those in this country. As far as I know, there has been only one piece of expedited work in connection with the Post Office started in Northern Ireland. I should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman could tell me of any other. That is in connection with fresh lines to Glasgow. It is only ancillary to the Glasgow scheme, and is only a fraction of the amount spent on this side of the Channel. I do not think that one pennyworth of expedited work has been started by the Post Office in the rest of Northern Ireland. The only help that has been given has been in connection with the Glasgow scheme, and it has only been given to one district, the Belfast district, and the whole of the rest of the six counties of Northern Ireland, as far as I know, have not had one pennyworth of expedited work allotted to them. I do not think I am asking anything which is unusual or unfair, but I appeal to the Post Office authorities to treat this part of Northern Ireland, not in preference, but on an equality with the rest of this country. I do suggest that the facts which I have brought forward to-night show that it is quite clear that we are not being treated fairly or equally with the rest of the country.

Commander SOUTHBY: I want to thank the Postmaster-General for his intervention because he certainly anticipated one or two of the points I intended to raise, notably the matter of the increase in the number of wireless licences. There are, however, one or two further points I desire to put before him. I understand, that it is the policy of the Postmaster-General to increase the use of automatic exchanges, and if that is so I should like to know what effect it is likely to have on the employment of telephone operatives. Then with regard to the question of the acceleration of main underground telephone works in connection with the relief of employment. The right hon. Gentleman did not answer the question in regard to putting the telephone wires underground. The interference in the recent gales was extremely bad, and not only from the point of view of the convenience of users of the telephone but from the point of view of economy it would be true economy to
spend the large capital sum necessary and place the telephone wires underground. I understand, on your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that it is not possible to go into the question of employment other than the employment given by the money which is in this Vote, but I suggest that what provision can be made should be made for putting the telephone service underground.
I should also like to ask the Postmaster-General to consider whether it is not possible to move the telegraph poles a great deal further back from the side of the road? A large number of accidents occur because these poles are right alongside the road, and in these days of increased motor traffic and road congestion I think this matter should be given some consideration, and in considering it perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will also have in mind putting the wires underground instead of having poles at all. The Postmaster-General mentioned the question of the neophone, and their provision. I suggest that one place where they should be provided as speedily as possible is in the public telephone call boxes, which are used by a large number of people. There is always the danger of a certain amount of infection from the telephone instrument. The provision of this neophone instrument means that the mouthpiece cannot get closer to the user of the telephone than a certain distance, and, from that point of view, they are more hygienic than the present method. I think these neophone telephones should be installed as speedily as possible in all telephone boxes. Those are the only questions I desire to put to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope he will be able to give me a reply to them.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I hope the Committee will allow us to have this Vote now. [Interruption.] We have had a very lengthy discussion, and it is now 11 o'clock. There are 14 other Votes to follow, and I can assure hon. Members that the various points which have been brought forward for my consideration will be most carefully examined. In fairness to the Votes which are to follow, I hope the Committee will now be ready to pass this Vote.

Sir K. WOOD: That is not a proper argument.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I hope hon. Members will allow me to answer the few
questions which are still outstanding, and will then let us have the Vote.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. Gentleman must not appeal on the ground that there are other Votes to follow. This is Committee of Supply, and we are not concerned with the Votes that are to follow.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I am not appealing on that small ground, but on the ground that the discussion has been a lengthy one. I was asked why it was that in some cases we asked for a guarantee for rural telephones and in other cases did not. The answer is that it depends mainly, even entirely, on the expense which that telephone is going to entail. At present there is not a rural call-office in every post office. If the expense is up to a certain reasonable limit the Post Office meets it, but if the expense is beyond that limit the Post Office meets part of it and asks for a guarantee for the remainder. That is the reason why there is a difference in the treatment of one village as compared with another. The hon. and gallant Member for Londonderry (Major Ross) asked about Northern Ireland. Most of his questions were concerned with delays to the mail traffic between this country and Northern Ireland. These delays have been discussed by the Post Office for some time. At the present moment there is a conference taking place between the Post Office Advisory Committee for Northern Ireland and the Postmaster for Northern Ireland. The latter has put forward certain pro-

posals, and the Advisory Committee will consider them.

Mr. HURD: There is the question of delays in engineering.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I was about to conclude by saying that the other questions put to me suggest that they have been put, not so much in order that I might give an answer containing information, but that I might deal with them in the Post Office. All the suggestions and complaints that have been made will be looked at very closely, and I hope that as a result many of the points that hon. Members have raised we shall be able to meet.

Viscount WOLMER: There is one question that I put specifically, and the Postmaster-General has not answered it, and that was what has become of the £750,000 of the Lord Privy Seal.

The CHAIRMAN: The Noble Lord is aware that questions of that sort have been ruled out of order.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I hope the Committee will now give us the Vote.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose—

Mr. LEES-SMITH: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 208; Noes, 97.

Division No. 215.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Gill, T. H.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Calne, Derwent Hall-
Gillett, George M.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cameron, A. G.
Glassey, A. E.


Alpass, J. H.
Cape, Thomas
Gossling, A. G.


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gould, F.


Angell, Norman
Charleton, H. C.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Win. (Edin., Cent.)


Arnott, John
Cluse, W. S.
Granville, E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Gray, Milner


Ayles, Walter
Cove, William G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon A. (Colne).


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bliston)
Daggar, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Barnes, Alfred John
Dallas, George
Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)


Batey, Joseph
Dalton, Hugh
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)


Bellamy, Albert
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hardie, George D.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Harris, Percy A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Benson, G.
Dukes, C.
Haycock, A. W.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Duncan, Charles
Hayday, Arthur


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, James Chuter
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Birkett, W. Norman
Edmunds, J. E.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Bowen, J. W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Egan, W. H.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Brothers, M.
Elmley, Viscount
Herriotts, J.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Foot, Isaac
Hoffman, P. C.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Forgan, Dr. Robert
Hollins, A.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Freeman, Peter
Hopkin, Daniel


Burgess, F. G.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Horrabin, J. F.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Milner, J.
Sherwood, G. H.


Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Morley, Ralph
Shield, George William


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Shillaker, J. F.


Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Simmons, C. J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Mort, D. L.
Sinkinson, George


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Moses, J. J. H.
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Jowett, Ht. Hon. F. W.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Kelly, W. T.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Kennedy, Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Kinley, J.
Oldfield, J. R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lang, Gordon
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Sorensen, R.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Stephen, Campbell


Lathan, G.
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Law, A. (Rosendale)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Strauss, G. R.


Lawrence, Susan
Palin, John Henry
Sullivan, J.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Paling, Wilfrid
Sutton, J. E.


Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Leach, W.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Tinker, John Joseph


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Toole, Joseph


Lees, J.
Picton-Tubervill, Edith.
Tout, W. J.


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Potts, John S.
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Logan, David Gilbert
Quibell, D. J. K.
Turner, B.


Longbottom, A. W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Vaughan, D. J.


Longden, F.
Raynes, W. R.
Viant, S. P.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Richards, R.
Wallace, H. W.


Lunn, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Watkins, F. C.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ritson, J.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


McElwee, A.
Romeril, H. G.
West, F. R.


McEntee, V. L.
Rosbotham D. S. T.
White, H. G.


McShane, John James
Rowson, Guy
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Mansfield, W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


March, S.
Sanders, W. S.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Marcus, M.
Sandham, E.
Wise, E. F.


Marley, J.
Sawyer, G. F.
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Marshall, Fred
Scrymgeour, E.



Messer, Fred
Scurr, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Middleton, G.
Sexton, James
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.


Mills, J. E.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis



NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Balllie-Hamilton. Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Smithers, Waldron


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Boyce, H. L.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Bracken, B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Buchan, John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Butler, R. A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Carver, Major W. H.
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Colman, N. C. D.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Womersley, W. J.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Muirhead, A. J.



Davies, Dr. Vernon
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Dug dale, Capt. T. L.
Peake, Captain Osbert

Original Question put accordingly, granted for the said Service."

"That a sum, not exceeding £995,000, be

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Was there not a reduction moved by the hon. Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman)?

The CHAIRMAN: No. There was no reduction moved.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 92.

Division No. 216]
AYES.
[11.13 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Paling, Wilfrid


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Haycock, A. W.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hayday, Arthur
Peters, Dr. Sidney John


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Alpass, J. H.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Ammon, Charles George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Angell, Norman
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Potts, John S.


Arnott, John
Herriotts, J.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Ayles, Walter
Hollins, A.
Raynes, W. R.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hopkin, Daniel
Richards, R.


Barnes, Alfred John
Horrabin, J. F.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Batey, Joseph
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Bellamy, Albert
Hunter, Dr. Joseph
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Ritson, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Romeril, H. G.


Benson, G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bentham, Dr. Ethel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rowson, Guy


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Birkett, W. Norman
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)


Bowen, J. W.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.
Sanders, W. S.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Kelly, W. T.
Sandham, E.


Bromfield, William
Kennedy, Thomas
Sawyer, G. F.


Brothers, M.
Kinley, J.
Scrymgeour, E.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lang, Gordon
Scurr, John


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sexton, James


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Lathan, G.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Burgess, F. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lawrence, Susan
Shield, George William


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shillaker, J. F.


Calne, Derwert Hall
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Simmons, C. J.


Cameron, A. G.
Leach, W.
Sinkinson, George


Cape, Thomas
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Logan, David Gilbert
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cove, William G.
Longbottom, A. W.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Daggar, George
Longden, F.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dallas, George
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Sorensen, R.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Strachey, E. J. St. Loe


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Strauss, G. R.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sullivan, J.


Dukes, C.
McElwee, A.
Sutton, J. E.


Duncan, Charles
McEntee, V. L.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Ede, James Chuter
McShane, John James
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Edmunds, J. E.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marcus, M.
Toole, Joseph


Egan, W. H.
Marley, J.
Tout, W. J.


Elmley, Viscount
Marshall, Fred
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles


Foot, Isaac
Messer, Fred
Turner, B.


Forgan, Dr. Robert
Middleton, G.
Vaughan, D. J.


Freeman, Peter
Mills, J. E.
Viant, S. P.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Milner, J.
Wallace, H. W.


Gibbins, Joseph
Morley, Ralph
Watkins, F. C.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gill, T. H.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Gillett, George M.
Mort, D. L.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Glassey, A. E.
Moses, J. J. H.
West, F. R.


Gossling, A. G.
Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)
White, H. G.


Gould, F.
Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
Williams, T. (York. Don Valley)


Granville, E.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Gray, Milner
Noel Baker, P. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Oldfield, J. R.
Wise, E. F.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Wright, W. (Rutherglen)


Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)



Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hardie, George D.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Mr. Hayes and Mr. William Whiteley.


Harris, Percy A.
Palin, John Henry



NOES.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Ramsbotham, H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Ross, Major Ronald D.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Salmon, Major I.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Gower, Sir Robert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Bird, Ernest Roy
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Waiter E.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Smithers, Waldron


Boyce, H. L.
Hartington, Marquess of
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Bracken, B.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Butler, R. A.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Thomson, Sir F.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Castle Stewart, Earl of
King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Colman, N. C. D.
MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Marjoribanks, E. C.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Womersley, W. J.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)



Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Duckworth, G. A. V.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Captain Wallace.


Resolutions agreed to.

CLASS II.

DOMINION SERVICES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £252,100, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for sundry Dominion Services, including certain Grants in Aid, for certain ex-gratia Grants, and for Expenditure in connection with Ex-Service Men in the Irish Free State, and for a Grant in Aid to the Irish Free State in respect of Compensation to Transferred Officers.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. Lunn): Under the heading F 1 in this Estimate come ex-gratia payments amounting to £247,500, which is the final sum to be asked for in connection with the awards of the Irish Grants Committee, otherwise known as the Wood-Renton Committee. That Committee was set up in October, 1920, to deal with events which happened in Ireland between July, 1921, and May, 1923. It was originally thought that the total amount which would be needed for this purpose would be £400,000, but the sums awarded by the Committee, including the amount provided for in this Estimate, amount to £2,188,549. The Committee have dealt with 4,030 claims; every claim which was put in before a specified date, after which claims could not be
received, every intimation of a claim which was made up to that date, has been dealt with by the Committee. I should be distinctly out of order if I were to go into the whole of this business on this Supplementary Estimate. My predecessor in office asked the Committee to sanction £500,000 to cover these claims, but unfortunately that has not proved to be sufficient. Now the Irish Grants Committee have finished their work, which has been carried out with great discrimination and fairness, and their Report is in the hands of the Secretary of State. In this connection, I should like, especially, to mention Sir Alexander Wood-Renton, Sir James Brunyate, and Sir John Oakley, who for more than three years have carried on this work with great fairness to all concerned. I should also like to mention Major Jamieson, who has been a most efficient Secretary to the Committee. Their work is now at an end, and I ask the Committee to agree to the amount of this Vote.
Under Subhead F 3 the sum of £4,600 is asked for in respect of compensation to transferred officers under the terms of an agreement made on 27th June, 1929. All details of this Estimate were discussed on a Bill which passed so recently as July last year, and in the Financial Resolution in connection with that agreement it was anticipated that the total sum that would
be needed would be in the region of £46,000. This sum has been divided up as follows: £31,000 was asked for in a Supplementary Estimate in March last. Only £25,920 of that £31,000 was used, and the rest was handed back to the Exchequer. I am now asking for a sum that has been passed several times by this House, that is, £4,600, and I think I am right in saying that it is expected that £15,000 will be asked for next year, making £46,000, which will complete the sum that will be necessary to meet the expenses in connection with the transferred officers.

Mr. AMERY: I should like, in the first place, to associate myself wholeheartedly with the words of appreciation which fell from the Under-Secretary of State in regard to the Committee over which Sir Alexander Wood-Renton presided. I have known their work for a long time, and I know with what care and devotion the members of that Committee and their invaluable secretary, Major Jamieson, worked both in the interests of equity and justice to a class of persons who have suffered very severely in the vicissitudes of Irish affairs, and no less in defence of the taxpayers of this country. In previous discussions on this question, which at one time were by no means without animation, considerable stress was laid on the fact that this Committee was not a judicial body, and that its procedure did not follow the procedure of the ordinary law court. Counsel were not as a rule in evidence, though counsel were admissible. As I think I have said before in the House, I am convinced that the more elastic and less formal procedure followed by the Committee did both more substantial and more expeditious justice, and yet at the same time saved the taxpayer large sums which might, on purely legal methods, very easily have been, not only demanded, but successfully sustained. The Committee is one that deserves the thanks of the nation.
There is just one question which perhaps I might be allowed to raise in that connection. Of the Members of the Committee, two, namely, Sir Alexander Wood-Renton, the Chairman, and Sir James Brunyate, were distinguished servants of the State who had retired, and who, in coming forward to render service
for this purpose, were naturally compensated for the time and labour that they gave to this work. The third, Sir John Oakley, was, and is, a highly successful professional man, still actively engaged in the pursuit of his career, and he willingly undertook this work at the beginning without any question of remuneration. I do not think he can have realised, and certainly none of us realised how long that work would be, and that it would take up something like two days a week for more than three years. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to consider whether, in these exceptional circumstances, with service prolonged so far beyond anything that could have been anticipated, some recognition might not be made in the direction of payment for Sir John Oakley's services. I admit that I speak en-timely without any authorisation from him, and without any knowledge of his views on the subject.
In any case, the nation will have paid, when this sum is dealt with, a total of not very far off £2,250,000 as compensation to loyalists in Ireland under this heading alone, apart from the very much larger sum that was spent in connection with land and other injuries suffered. The sum may be large, but so was the amount of the suffering, and I think we can be glad that we can close this chapter with a feeling that at any rate we have attempted to do substantial justice. I do not think I need add anything more on that subject. On the other point, that of the transferred Civil Servants, there again, I understand, we are finally winding up—

Mr. LUNN: No; this Supplementary Estimate for £4,600 brings the total up to the £31,000 that was voted last March, of which £4,600 was not used. There is no Estimate for 1930, but during 1931 it is expected that there will have to be added another £15,000, making up the total of £46,000 which I mentioned.

Mr. AMERY: So we may yet get an Estimate for £15,000, but it is hoped that will complete the whole expenditure. There again we are closing a chapter in an old controversy and we reach a satisfactory solution. There is only one small question that I should like to ask. When this matter was settled between ourselves and the Irish Free
State, the Irish Free State gave us to understand that, while they would pay on the Privy Council scale for all transferred civil servants who wished to retire before March 1st last year, they had arrived at complete agreement with the representatives of the transferred civil servants with regard to those who wished to stay on after March, that when their time for retirement came, they should retire, not on the Privy Council scale, but on the Treasury scale on the same principles that apply to British civil servants, the Irish Free State having agreed on their side to a quid pro quo, that a statutory Commission should be set up under which their retirements would in future be regulated, and which guaranteed to those transferred civil servants certain privileges with regard to variations in the character of their work, hours and conditions of service and so on which in their opinion were well worth securing, even if they had to sacrifice the difference between the Privy Council scale and the Treasury scale. I understand that a statutory Commission is to be set up and that, in order to justify the variation from the strict letter of the terms of the agreement under which the Free State is set up, legislation is required both in the Dail and in the House of Commons. Unless I am mistaken, that legislation has not yet been passed, and I should be very glad to learn when the hon. Gentleman expects the parallel legislation to be introduced and passed in the Houses of the two countries.

Major CARVER: I should like to supplement the remarks my right hon. Friend has just made. We have been told the Irish Grants Committee has been sitting for three years. Two of its members were paid. I want to speak on behalf of Sir John Oakley, who was not paid anything at all. It is true he was awarded a decoration, the G.B.E., but it was not given on that account. He sat on the Sumner Commission and has done a great deal of other Government work. He has been President of the Surveyors' Institute and I think some consideration should be given him. Even if he were awarded the G.B.E., is that sufficient for three years' very hard work? I have brought this personally to the notice of the Secretary of State and I
am glad to have this opportunity of asking him once more if he will take into consideration the claims of a man who has done a great deal for his country.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: I should like to join in the tribute paid by my right hon. Friend to the Wood-Renton Committee. I know the enormous labours with which they were faced. Many of the claims that were sent in had to be rejected here. They were outside the terms of reference, but far more than the 4,000 cases my right hon. Friend has told us about had to be looked into. There was an enormous amount of work to do, and I should like to pay tribute to their labours. Over £2,000,000 passed through their hands in dealing with these awards. This is the result of an expensive legacy handed down to us by the original Coalition Government, and I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to tell us that this is the last payment some eight years after these happenings. This closes a chapter which is to the credit of no one party, neither in this country nor in Ireland, and I am glad to say that at last this matter is dead and buried.
I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman one or two questions about the other item, the Grant-in-Aid of £4,600. It arises out of the appeal made by the Irish Free State in what is known as the Wigg-Cochrane case. This went against the Irish Free State, and the British Government are paying now the sums which the Privy Council awarded to these Civil Servants in Ireland who were either displaced or who relinquished their appointments. This decision was made in November, 1928, and I should like to know from the hon. Gentleman how many of these people have received payment? It is 18 months ago now since the judgment was given. Can he give us any further information about this matter? Under the Irish Free State (Confirmation) Act a transferred officer had to notify his desire to retire from the service of the Irish Free State in consequence of a change of Government, and this notice had to be given by the 5th day of December, 1929. How many of these persons have handed in their names, and how many of them come
under this Vote? There was the case of the transferred officer
who is transferred to the said service after the fifth day of December, 1928, or within one year after the date of such transfer.
Then there is the case of the promoted officer to whom a certain amount of compensation is due. That has to be computed by reference to the salary and emoluments of the grade or situation which he held immediately before he received such promotion. Can the hon. Gentleman give us the details I Will this matter in the future be covered by the £15,000 of which he has spoken? Are we to have further estimates each year with regard to this matter? Is it a continuing service? He says that this amount is part of the £31,000 already voted, part of which has been handed back and for which he is now asking again. How many persons are affected, how many still remain to be dealt with, and how much longer is this new service to continue?

Mr. SANDERS: I am astonished to hear from the right hon. Gentleman the member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) that this is a satisfactory conclusion to a financial arrangement in which an estimate of £400,000 has grown into a sum of £2,250,000. I cannot understand how the satisfaction arises, except in this, that it is a sum which, instead of having to be met by the party which was responsible for it, is having to be met by our party. That, I understand, is quite satisfactory from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. AMERY: The satisfaction is that justice has been done.

Mr. LUNN: With regard to Sir John Oakley, all that I can say is that I will convey what has been said to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I cannot say more, or make any promise that would bind me in any way. I admit all that the hon. and gallant Member has said, but that is as far as I can go in this Debate. With regard to the tribunal mentioned by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery), there is no mention yet of any legislation on this matter. A tribunal to deal with these matters has been set up, and is now at
work dealing with all the cases. The point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chelmsford (Colonel Howard-Bury) does not arise on a Supplementary Estimate of this description. The British Government have nothing whatever to do with that particular matter. The Irish Free State deals with these things. We know nothing of the individual cases. A lump sum is asked for in accordance with the agreement and the Act and that is what I am asking for in this Supplementary Estimate, to meet the c aim which is made by the tribunal of the Irish Free State.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does not the Comptroller and Auditor -General of the Free State send an account?

Mr. LUNN: If the hon. and gallant Member will read the Supplementary Estimate he will see that we get no details.

CLASS VI.

MINES DEPARTMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10. be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Mines Department of the Board of Trade.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ben Turner): This Supplementary Estimate does not call for a long explanation. It is merely a token Vote. The gross expenditure of the Mines Department will exceed by just over £1,300 the amount originally provided. There is really no increase in the net expenditure of the Department, for the reason that the work which has, in the main, led to the gross expenditure being exceeded, has also resulted in an equivalent increase in the receipts shown under Subhead H. Provision for the work I have referred to is made under Subhead E, and I will therefore deal first with that excess. It is due to an unforeseen increase in the work of testing explosives used in mines. Up to a few years ago explosives were tested at Rotherham, but owing to difficulties with the supply of gas for testing purposes the station had to be closed, and temporary arrange-
ments were made to carry out the testing elsewhere. Before the new permanent arrangements could be made it was found necessary to reconstitute the form of test, and the work of formulating the new test was entrusted to the Explosives in Mines Research Committee of the Mines Re-search Board. When the current year's Estimates of the Department were being prepared it did not appear likely that the new test would be in operation for more than a short period of the financial year. It was found later on to be possible to complete it during the past summer, and a large number of existing explosives were sent to the Department for retesting, and a number of new ones were also dealt with. It was not right, of course, that this important work should be held up when once the new test was completed. In these circumstances the cost of the testing work is likely to exceed the amount provided for by about £1,000. There have been savings on other items which make the cost only £475. The cost of testing is met by fees paid by manufacturers of explosives and the receipts under Subhead H will exceed by just over £1,300, the amount in the Estimates. The excess under Subhead C is a small one owing to the amount spent on telephones with an increased inspectorate and more use of the telephone system. The remaining excess comes under salaries, wages, and allowances due to the cost-of-living bonus which has been explained to the House recently. The amount therefore that will be required is £10, but actually we have not spent any additional money, and this is largely, therefore, a book-keeping arrangement.

Commodore DOUGLAS KING: There are one or two questions which I would like to ask. In the first place, with regard to Subhead A, Salaries, Wages and Allowances, the hon. Gentleman has said that that has already been dealt with under other circumstances. This is further provision required because of the retention of the Civil Service bonus. [Interruption.] Nearly one-fifth of the Socialist party are representatives of the mining areas, and I should have thought that they would at least have taken an interest in the Mines Department. At any rate, they are not going to stop me by their interjections.

Mr. TINKER: I do not think that the remark made by the hon. and gallant Member is in Order or fair. To speak of the mining Members not taking an interest in this Vote is wrong, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to withdraw it.

Commodore KING: I do not think that that is a point of Order. I was referring to the interruptions and interjections from below the Gangway. I know the hon. Member opposite does take a keen interest in mining affairs and in all matters in this House, but, when I get up for a few minutes to put a few questions to the Secretary for Mines, it it only right that Members opposite should allow me to make a few remarks. Under Subhead A it says that further provision is required to meet the cost of the retention of the Civil Service bonus at a cost-of-living figure of 70 for the full year. Does that mean that it is further to the provision already made, or that it is further to the Estimates which were presented to the House last year? I know the retention of the figure has come in since the original Estimates were put forward, and I am wondering why other Estimates do not contain any Supplementary Vote for that amount, whereas the Estimates of the Mines Department do. I am not objecting to it in the slightest. I am glad that the Mines Department is making that provision. I am wondering whether any previous provision had been made and whether this was further to such provision or further to the Estimates presented last year.
The Secretary for Mines tells us that the increased charge of £95 for telegrams and telephones is due to an increase in the inspectorate. May I ask to what extent the inspectorate has been increased? Is it owing to the pressure of business in the Mines Department; have they had to put in a new telephone line to the Board of Trade? I do not know what increase in the inspectorate could justify an increase of £95. The estimate of the Mines Department are so very carefully drawn up that it is surprising to find a difference of £95 on such an item as telegrams and telephones.
Then as to technical research. The Secretary for Mines has told us that owing to the change in the explosives
gallery from Rotherham to Buxton there was a difficulty in carrying out tests with regard to explosives. When it was moved to Buxton they found a difficulty in carrying out the tests; the experiments did not give satisfactory results. The Research Board, therefore, carried out fresh experiments and I am glad to know that they have developed so far that they are now in a position to use them in regard to explosives sent in by outside firms. When I was at the Mines Department there was a general hold-up by manufacturers of explosives. They knew that a new test was being devised and did not send in their explosives for tests as regularly as they had done, and there was likely to be an accumulation by the time the test was finally evolved. The hon. Member also mentioned various new-explosives which had come in and which tended to increase the amount that is being met by this estimate. I do not expect him to be able to give me details, but I am interested in a certain experiment which is being carried out by the testing gallery at Buxton with regard to a disrupter rather than an explosive, a carbon dioxide disrupter tested by the Research Board, which gives promise to the mining industry of great results in the disruption of coal rather than the explosion of coal, without the same danger of causing explosions by fire. I understand that it is a metal cylinder filled with liquid carbon dioxide. It has a heating chamber inside lit by a detonator or fuse, and disrupts instead of explodes. Can the Secretary for Mines give me any information as to whether experiments on these lines are being continued. Obviously, from the point of view of safety in the mines, this is an experiment which gives promise of providing greater safety in mines than has hitherto been the case.
12 m.
I should like to know whether the increased cost of testing and research is mainly due to the salaries of the personnel, or whether it is mainly due to the material required for experiments. I put it in that way to ascertain whether any increase is being made in the research staff at Buxton or elsewhere for the furtherance of safety in mines by these experiments. I appreciate very much the amount of work that is done under
the superintendence of the Department in regard to explosions and research for safety in mines, and I would never grudge or criticise the expenditure of money in that direction.

Mr. TINKER: In addition to the sum required for testing and research, I note that a further sum of £751 is required for salaries, wages and allowances. I suppose that increase has been given to the inspectors.

The CHAIRMAN: That item covers the extra cost of bonus.

Mr. TINKER: Will it not go to the inspectors of mines as well as others?

The CHAIRMAN: The House has decided that this is a question for the Treasury and not for the Mines Department.

Mr. TINKER: Am I to understand that I cannot deal with the work of the Department under this heading?

The CHAIRMAN: No: This part of the Supplementary Estimate relates to the increase arising out of the bonus, for which the Mines Department is not responsible. That comes under the Treasury Vote. The question that has been asked was whether this was an additional sum for the bonus.

Mr. TINKER: I have nothing further to say on the point.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Is the Mines Department taking precautions with regard to the personnel for research purposes? In the Service Departments there are trained men, military and civil, who have had lifelong experience with explosives. At the Royal Arsenal there is a very important research Department which deals with every kind of explosive, and not merely from the military point of view. They investigate all types of explosives, detonators, etc. Unfortunately, we see each Government Department getting into a watertight compartment and setting up its own staff. Here we have the Mires Department—

An HON. MEMBER: What has the Royal Arsenal and its explosives to do with this Vote?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Member is pointing out that in regard to explosives the Royal Arsenal is doing work similar to that of the Mines Department.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Does the Mines Department take advantage of all the systems that have been tried out? Otherwise, there will be great waste of Government money in covering ground which has already been covered and obtaining knowledge already in the possession of other Departments.

Mr. KELLY: On a point of Order. Are we to be allowed to discuss the methods adopted at Woolwich Arsenal?

The CHAIRMAN: I find great difficulty in following the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut-Colonel Heneage), but I am anxious to do him every justice. I understand that he is asking the Mines Department if their system of testing is similar to that employed in Woolwich Arsenal, in relation to explosives.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: If hon. Members opposite would leave it to you, Mr. Young, to decide whether I am in Order or not, considerable time would be saved. I want to know whether the system in the Mines Department is not a wasteful one in this respect, that they are not taking advantage of the knowledge already obtained by other Departments, or whether they are taking advantage of the work of other Departments. I see the First Lord of the Admiralty in his place, and we should be interested to know if the results of experiments carried out in his Department are communicated to the Secretary of the Mines Department. This knowledge is either practical or mathematical, and I understand from reports in the papers that a great deal of the ground already covered in the Royal Arsenal is being re-traversed by the Mines Department. If that be so, I submit that this Vote is a mistake. I ask that we shall not set up in the Mines Department a separate explosives research section such as we have already under the Home Office, when this work might just as well be centralised. We have explosives departments in the Admiralty, the Army and the Air Force, as well as in the Home Office, and now, apparently, we are to have another in the Mines Department.

Captain CROOKSHANK: I hope that hon. Members opposite will pay great attention to what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) because during his time of service in the Army, my hon. and gallant Friend was a great expert on the subject of explosives, and his observations on that matter should be treated with all respect. [Interruption.] There seems to be an explosive atmosphere in the Committee, but I hope hon. Members will not object if I address some questions to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate. [Interruption.]

The CHAIRMAN: It is sometimes very difficult for me to follow the speakers owing to these interruptions. Unless I can hear the speakers, I am not in a position to determine whether the speeches are in order or not.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The hon. Gentleman in charge of the Estimate—whom we congratulate on the length of his speech on this occasion—went through the various items so quickly that I could not gather exactly what he meant until he concluded by saying that his Department had spent no additional money. That statement showed a complete misapprehension of the position. The hon Gentleman's Department has spent a considerable sum of extra money; it has also received a considerable amount more than was anticipated in Appropriations-in-Aid, and the net result, of course, is that the hon. Gentleman comes to the Committee for a token Vote of £10. But to say that the Department has not spent any additional money is quite inaccurate, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will not continue under that impression. The additional sum required is £1,321 and a little error has crept into the statement in the Estimate which I should not like to go upon the records uncorrected. The work of testing and research, I understand used to be done in Rotherham, but through some unforeseen circumstances the work there came to an end and the research was then carried out by the Mines Research Board. The Estimate states under Subhead E that "consequently the number of tests to be carried out is greater than was anticipated." I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the word "consequently" in this
connection is quite ridiculous. It does not follow that, because the location of the work was changed, there was necessarily more work to be done. I should also like to ask what is the revised test as compared with the original form of test, and how far is there co-operation between the Mines Research Board, under this extended system of testing explosives, and one of the most important scientific departments under our administration, namely the National Physical Laboratory! That is a department which is devoted to experimenting on difficult and abstruse scientific subjects, and it seems to me that it should be the duty of the Secretary of the Mines Department to consult with them about the revised test. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Surely, hon. Members opposite recognise that the whole point of a Supplementary Estimate is that information may be elicited and that there are Members here, representing agricultural constituencies, who have not the a priori knowledge of this subject possessed by the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage).
I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Vote what kind of collaboration, if any, exists between his Department and the Service Departments in this matter—no doubt the First Lord of the Admiralty will be able to say off hand—and also how far there is collaboration on these scientific subjects with the National Physical Laboratory? I believe that it is through the scientists attached to that Department, that we shall get the most satisfactory results. That Department has its feelers out in every scientific and technical institution in the country. It has the widest possible scope for telling the world when it has made successful investigations and the result of its applied scientific knowledge. So, when the hon. Gentleman talks about a revised test of explosives, it would be as well to consult not only the Mines Research Board, the people at Rotherham, whoever they may be, but this great public Department, which was set up for the very purpose of scientific investigation. I hope that he will be able to tell me that this has been done. I should like to know what tests are made in explosives, because most tests in explosives end up in an explosion, and that is the end of it. [Interrup-
tion.] The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) tells me that researchers sometimes disappear. I hope that that will not be the fate of the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Mines, or any of his Department. [Interruption.] It is very difficult to get on, because there are so many interruptions around me. Apparently, this is a comic subject, but I should never have thought that anything to do with the Department of Mines was in the least comic—not even the Secretary. When the hon. Gentleman asks for £1,300 and blandly tells us that he is not spending any more money, it is evident that he has lost control with the financial responsibility of his Department. I hope that he will explain that statement, so that no inaccuracies appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow. Will he also tell me how it is that under Appropriations-in-Aid—and I have no doubt that he is fully aware of the system of accounting which brings them into the Vote—there appears the recovery of the salaries of two officers seconded to other Departments. What are these officers doing, and how does it come about that the Mines Department, which is a very technical one and very unlikely, one would have thought, to lend officers to other Departments, is able to second these officers?

Mr. GEORGE BALFOUR: I have on a number of occasions in Committee objected to token Votes, and I cannot remember an occasion when objection was more justified than it is new. We are asked to regard this merely as a Vote for £10, but, if hon. Members will look at tile Appropriation-in-Aid, £1,321, and turn to the next page, and see the details, they will find that this is [...]argely attributable to expenses saved in officers seconded to other Departments. That causes a much more material point than appears at first sight, because we are not only asked to incur what is an initial expense of £1,321, which is the amount stated on the Paper if you include the Appropriation-in-Aid, but we are asked to pass a Vote for twice that amount, as far as we know, because, if hon. Members turn to Paper 73, which contains a complete list of the Supplementary Estimates, including the Estimate which is before the Committee,
they will find no mention of this Appropriation-in-Aid shown as a debit on any other account.
If that is not debited to one of the other Supplementary Estimates we are, in fact, passing a Vote for £2,600 odd instead of a token Vote. If the House of Commons is to have any respect for its duties, it should pay serious attention to every one of these Votes. I should not be speaking here to-night if I had not a profound conviction that every one of these matters ought to be properly analysed. The House must not neglect its primary function of being the guardian of the public purse. Cannot the Secretary for Mines give us a plain statement telling us where this £1,321 is debited to another account and brought into the sum of £12,000,000, which is the total of all these Supplementary Estimates. If he can say it is debited as an extra item of expenditure to a certain Vote named in this long list, I shall say that satisfies me. If he cannot answer that question, or if there is no answer, then I should say there has been deliberate deception of the House of Commons, because we should really be asking for £2,600.

Mr. E. BROWN: I appeal to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to give some attention to this point. My right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne (Mr. Leif Jones) and I have raised this point in his absence on several other Votes. We find here appropriations-in-aid amounting to £12,000. Do we get those sums back on the debit side of the Consolidated Fund? I cannot trace them. If we do, then I have no more to say. But surely the old system under which appropriations-in-aid consisted only of small sums received inside the Departments was a wiser and sounder practice? This is really an estimate of moneys—I will not say expenditure—amounting to £2,632. It appears in the total as a sum of £10. That may be an indication that large sums of money—and the amounts are growing larger and larger as the practice extends—totalling millions in the end, are withdrawn from any chance of criticism. The Financial Secretary shakes his head, and I am pleased he does so. Then, if these things are put down, some of us would like to know where to find them. We have done some research for them, and we feel concerned.
This is not a trivial point, because it may be possible for millions of money to be withdrawn from any effective public discussion.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I would like to direct the attention of the Minister and the Committee to Item E. He explained just now that he gets certain receipts—charges certain fees—in connection with the testing of these explosives. The examination into the value of these explosives is most important work from the point of view of the safety of the mines and I should like to know whether the expenditure is covered by the receipts he gets from the fees. There are various types of mines, not only the coal mines of which hon. Members opposite are no doubt thinking, and I would like to know whether these tests of explosives take into account the needs of all the mines in the country. Do they, for instance, cover the explosives used in the tin mines in Cornwall, in the granite and slate quarries, and other quarries from which road-making materials are obtained? We seldom get any opportunity of hearing anything about any section of the mining industry except one—the biggest section, I admit, but not the oldest. Another point which has struck me is this. We have in the West Country some of the best and most up-to-date factories for the making of explosives, and these products are exported all over the world. If these explosives are tested by the Goverment and approved for use in this country, would it not be possible to mark them in such a way that they would be known throughout the world as Government-tested products? That might prove a very useful advertisement for the Mining Department and for the trade in general.
I should like to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) in a very strong protest against this growing habit of building up an Estimate in the way in which it has been built up to-night. It is most confusing, and, although it may not deceive hon. Members on this side, there must be hon. Members who do not realise that accounting of this kind is not in the best interests. I do not want to deal with Clause C for it is only the natural extravagance which grows with the present Government in power. I wish to draw attention to Item A of this particular Vote because under this Item, as already
pointed out, you have a sum which normally should go to another year; but I am not protesting against finding this money, because I wish to blame the Board of Trade or the Minister of Mines.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We had a discussion on this question on Thursday, and it was understood then that no subsequent discussion would take place.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am sorry that I have forgotten that we have had a Ruling on this matter which rules out further discussion on this point. I will content myself with saying how sorry I am that this particular Vote has been made more difficult than it need have been because of the inefficiency of the Chanceller of the Exchequer.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Does that work include the testing of explosives? I attended a meeting upstairs with a number of miners, and a demonstration was given which appeared to me, and appealed to practical members, as a very efficient method. We were told that an application was made for a Departmental test. Has any money been spent on such tests?

Mr. TURNER: The Research Station at Sheffield is included in the expenditure of the Mines Department, and very great care and attention is being given to all new apparatus and new inventions so as to provide, if possible, security and safety for the miners in the mines. No step is being left untaken to provide gas detectors so as to make the mines more safe than at the present time. Many of the questions in the Debate have been respecting the explosives section of this Vote, and I would say that there has been a new form of test, constituted on the advice of an expert committee in connection with the Mines Department research work. Representatives of some of the Service Departments are engaged on that Committee, and no first-class expert is overlooked in the determination of these explosives. In connection with the charge of explosives used, the varying charges are now replaced by a uniform charge limit of 28 oz. There has been no weakening of the test. I want to say, that we ought to be proud of
and thankful for the energy displayed by those in charge of the Buxton and Sheffield stations, in improving safety methods in connection with the mines.
I will not go into the Civil Service bonus, because it would not be in order, except to say that at the Mines Department there is very clean book-keeping and the extra bonus is to meet the change announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As regards the telephones, there have been additional inspectors in recent periods, and there has been a more effective use of the telephone. The new disrupter has been alluded to, and I may say that experiments are still going on. My hope is that some time they will find very good means whereby the terrible loss of a thousand lives in the mines and scores of miners injured each year may be reduced. The hon. Member who gave us the amusing interlude, must not have been in his place when I made the statement that the gross expenditure of the Mines Department is exceeded by £1,300. I hope I shall never in my life attempt to deceive anybody. I do not understand the details of the explosives test referred to, but I am certain our research department will include everybody they can and every method to get the best possible results. I want to express the hope that I was not unduly long in my few observations. I could have spoken an hour, but it would have been no use. I was saving the House a certain amount of infliction which at this time of night we do not desire. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked about the tin mines and the testing of explosives in the tin mines. Tin mines and quarries do come under the Mines Department, and, of course, from that point of view, any necessary attention to these is given.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is the test the same?

Mr. TURNER: I could not say technically whether the tests are the same, but the tests are what are required for proper testing. [Interruption.]

Mr. WILLIAMS: After all, I am representing quite a different industry from what some hon. Members opposite represent. Could the hon. Gentleman let me know afterwards? Could he write and tell me? I feel sure he will do so. [Interruption.]

Earl WINTERTON: On a point of Order. Hon. Members on this side of the House wish to listen to the very interesting speech which the Secretary to the Mines Department is making. Could you, Mr. Chairman, ask his supporters to be a little less exuberant?

Mr. LAWTHER: Would it not be better, before hon. Members opposite ask questions, that they should read the research works issued by the Department?

Mr. TURNER: A point was asked respecting the two transferred officers. One has gone to the Inland Revenue Department and one has gone to the Ministry of Labour. I think the matter will be settled by amicable arrangement between the two departments, and that the Departments will get the benefit of their services. I say, quite frankly, that I do not know how it is worked out without inquiry.

Mr. BALFOUR: I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member, but he stated that these two officials credited here have been debited somewhere. I do not want to press the question on him, but I do want to impress on the Committee that the matter should be looked into.

Mr. TURNER: I will promise that it will be looked into. I am a Yorkshire-man, and I do like to see fourpence for fourpence. I think I have answered practically all the questions, and, if there are any points in connection with the research department, the mines works' department, or any other matter on which hon. Members want information, our experts will give them all the assistance they want.

Sir K. WOOD: rose—

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. T. Kennedy): rose in Ms place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Sir K. WOOD: I only wished to ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he could answer the question.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I think the point of the right hon.
Gentleman the Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) was a perfectly simple point. In these questions of Appropriation-in-Aid the real fact is that the Treasury has taken the means to have the fact most explicitly stated, and, if hon. Members will think it over, they will realise that no other means can be so explicit and clear for giving the House so much information. Whenever an item would appear in one account and it has been defrayed by another, the Treasury insists that it goes into the account from which it is abstracted by an Appropriation-in-aid. It might be asked why it appears in the other account. If this is an additional item for which the original Estimate did not suffice, of course a Supplementary Estimate would have to be provided to meet it; but, if it is sufficient to cover the service of an officer, the fact that he is attached does not appear, as there is a view to saving. Suppose, for example, that there is an amount available for the employment of an additional officer: There are two courses open. He might be taken as an extra man; that would be an extra charge on the Exchequer. Instead of that, they might be able to take him from another Department, and that would involve the actual saving of a man.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am not quite clear about that. It is, in fact, the £1,300 odd that is credited to this account that appears in another account in some form or another? Is it in addition to another Supplementary Estimate? That is all I want to know. If it is replacing two men who have disappeared, then, of course, no account is required.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: It is not brought into a Supplementary Estimate because in the Inland Revenue Department and in the Ministry of Labour, in which the two men have been transferred, there is sufficient provision to cover them, and, therefore, no Supplementary Estimate is required.

CLASS V.

REGISTRAR GENERAL'S OFFICE, ENGLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,960, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the
31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Registrar General of Births, &c.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): The Estimate I have to present to the House is accounted for by the legislation involved since the Estimates were framed last year.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: On a point of Order. I beg to state that hon. Members on this side, below and above the Gangway, are unable to hear either what was the Estimate you called or the hon. Lady.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Estimate I have to present is Class V., No. 3, page 12 on the paper—"Registrar General's Office, England." The bulk of the Estimate is accounted for by legislation which has been passed by this House since the original Estimate was framed, and the two heads accounting for most of the expenditure are the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, 1929, and the Local Government Act, 1929. Under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, 1929, the Department has to verify the ages of a very large number of widows and wives. In a great number of cases, also, it is necessary to verify the marriage of widows and wives. In all, we have to make over 815,000 verifications, and approximately 100,000 of these will fall to be verified during this financial year. We shall need additional staff to the extent of about £2,500. Under the Local Government Act, 1929, there is a transfer of certain registration duties to Local Authorities, and the transfer necessitates additional staff. There is an additional sum for bonuses, but that matter has already been explained in all the previous Estimates. With regard to the second item, £780 odd, the necessity arises from a very unfortunate cause. There were more deaths in the March quarter than were estimated and the fees for the registrars have therefore been in excess of the Estimates. That accounts for the sum of £780 mentioned. I hope the Committee will be satisfied and will, after this explanation, pass the Estimate.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I would like to put one or two questions to the Minister. She has explained that part of
the Estimate is for salaries for the additional staff. Can she tell us whether that staff has been taken from other departments and a corresponding saving shown. We have been told that a certain number of ex-Servicemen have been turned away from various Government departments. Questions have been raised in this House on the subject about these ex-Servicemen, who are probably suitable for this kind of work, who have been turned away. Have those men been given a chance of being taken on by her department for this work?

Mr. ALBERY: Will the hon. Lady answer a question about Subhead (A) which concerns additional assistance required in connection with searches in the records of births, deaths and marriages in consequence of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1929? Can she give the Committee any idea of what is the average cost in each case for research of this kind?

Miss LAWRENCE: We are estimating for £2,500. We believe there will be 100,000 eases. With pencil and paper I think the hon. Member will be able to calculate the average sum for that 100,000.

Mr. ALBERY: It is a supplementary amount which is required. It would not cover the whole cost.

Miss LAWRENCE: It is a supplementary amount for new work falling to be done during this financial year. We estimate the number of such cases for this financial year at approximately 100,000. I cannot divide by 100,000 in my head, but with a pencil and a piece of paper the hon. Member will be able to do that sum.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Will the hon. Lady answer my question? Have the men been taken from other departments, not the Ministry of Health, for this work? Have ex-Servicemen who have been turned away by this Government been given a chance to do this work?

Miss LAWRENCE: I will communicate with my hon. gallant Friend as to the details of the staff. I have not got them with me at the present time.

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: I would like to ask a question about this. I want to know why in this additional provision required such a large sum of money has been expended. I happen to know the machines used for getting information concerning births, marriages and deaths are automatic machines and only a very small amount of extra labour ought to be necessary to get the information connected with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act, 1929. I cannot understand why it is necessary to spend that amount of money since all you have to do is to pile the cards into the machine, turn the handle and the result is given. I should have thought that with a little expenditure one could have got all this information without expending this large sum of £3,680, which is divided up into various details. The hon. Lady ought to have given us some information about the details of this sum. I should like an answer to my question.

Sir K. WOOD: It would save a little time if the hon. Lady would reply to what the hon. Member has said.

Miss LAWRENCE: If the hon. Member will give me the name of a maker of machines that can search the register and can ascertain the date of death of the husbands of all the widows we have to deal with I am sure the Department will be very grateful. I know of no machines which will give you an answer if you put the question to it, "When did Mr. Brown die?"

Rear-Admiral BEAMISH: The date of death of all the people in this country is registered and is discoverable as I said by means of an automatic machine.

Mr. E. BROWN: I would put the hon. Lady another question and it is this. Would Members be good enough to pay attention to the passage marked with an asterisk in which we find references to two appropriations in aid. There is an Appropriation-in-Aid under Subhead G of £1,500 and then we have this figure of £3,680 which refers to additional provision required in connection with the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act and which is marked with an asterisk. Of this sum it is stated in the footnote that £2,500 will be recovered from the Pensions Account and appro-
priated in aid of the Vote for the Ministry of Health. The same remark is made about a sum of £190 under Subhead C. We ought to have a little information about that point. While we are talking about it, we might ask the hon. Lady whether or no that sum is sufficient to do the work necessary. That from the point of view of the widows is a very important matter. Those of us who are Members for constituencies and have had a lot of letters from widows—[Interruption.] I have had a good many and I can assure the hon. Members that they have caused me no hilarity whatever.
I have a letter here from a widow and I have great pleasure in calling the attention of the Minister to it. It is about this very question. This widow writes from a slum street in Leith to me and she tells me that she and two others can get no answer whatever from the pensions department as to whether or no their claims have been received, or whether they are going to get an answer in the affirmative or not. She is not hilarious about it and she adds this:
When the General Election comes round these Labour people will stand where the Tories were last time.
This matter is relevant because this sum of money is in connection with these researches and I am not satisfied that the department has taken enough money to do the work efficiently and well so that the widows might know as soon as possible where they are and whether their claims will be met. If hon. Members want long discussions on these points they can have them, but I am genuinely concerned, as I am sure my hon. Friends are who hear from their constituents that widows have put claims in and can get no answer. The result is that our correspondence bags in this House are made very weighty and that some of us whose incomes are not too large have to pay a much larger postage bill than we ought to if the proper amount had been taken for this service.

Mr. LEES: What is the date of that letter?

1.0 a.m.

Mr. BROWN: It is dated 19th February. This is the first time I have raised such a matter on the Floor of the House. I always take any question of the sort up with the Department. The only time
I would take it on the Floor of the House would be if I thought that the Department had made a grave mistake on a matter of public policy. This is not a matter for hilarity.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I wish to ask the Minister a simple question on a matter that has cropped up in the last few months, since the passing of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act. It is in connection with the Appropriation-in-Aid over the amount received from fees for research. Can the right hon. Lady tell me what is the charge to those widows for research work, to find out the date of marriage or the date of birth? I hope the fee is a very small one, otherwise it will be a great hardship on the people.

Captain AUSTIN HUDSON: Just for the sake of information, is it not a fact that records of births, deaths, and marriages are only kept locally by local authorities, and that there is no single clearing house? I wish the hon. Lady would tell me that, because it is important. If there is some central registration Department, I think we ought to know. I always understood that you had to go to the local authorities to get the information.

Major NATHAN: I wish to draw the attention of the hon. Lady to an item of £1,500 under Sub-head G. Appropriation-in-aid in respect of cash fees. Broadly speaking, the cost of certified copies of documents is relatively small.
The price of search is ordinarily, I believe, only a shilling a search. It would not be unfair to suggest that the greater part of the sum of £1,500 is attributable to searches. That seems an extraordinarily large sum. Assuming, which I think is a little generous assumption in favour of the Minister, that one-third of the £1,500 is in respect of certified copies, that leaves £1,000 payable in respect of shilling searches. That means that there have been 20,000 searches over the original estimate. I ask the hon. Lady if she will give an analysis as far as she can of the £1,500, and also indicate what is the nature of the searches; whether they arise under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and
whether the charges fall on the pockets of those who are to receive the benefits of the Act.

Miss LAWRENCE: The answer to the question as to who bears the cost of the searches under the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Pensions Act will be satisfactory. The applicants are not asked to make the searches. With regard to the question of why the public have asked for so many searches and certified copies, I really cannot say. But the hon. and gallant Member for North East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) is a little mistaken when he says a shilling is charged for a certified copy. It is half-a-crown. With regard to the question of the delay in getting replies to applications for widows' pensions, I would be only too glad to deal with any particular case, but Members must remember, and it would be a kindness if they would explain this, that the searches, especially with regard to the older widows, are often very difficult. You have to go back over many years to ascertain whether the husband was a man who was in insurable employment. The circumstances are exceedingly difficult. These widows' pensions fall to be due in July, and, if their pensions are delayed, they will have a grievance. But I do not think it is a very great grievance to ask them to wait while the necessary researches are being made.

Mr. BROWN: In the case of widows who have to wait a very long time, it would be a great help if a notification were sent that their claims had been received. I do not ask for that in every case, but only in cases where the wait is very long.

Miss LAWRENCE: I will consider it, but I do not think it is possible that we could send out 500,000 acknowledgments.

Mr. SANDERS: For the satisfaction of the Minister may I say that I am one Member, at any rate, who has not received a single complain; from any widow.

Resolutions to be reported upon Monday next. Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

REPORT [3RD MARCH].

Resolutions reported,

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1929.

CLASS VI.

1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £16,392, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Ministry of Transport, under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, Expenses of the Railway Rates Tribunal under the Railways Act, 1921, Expenses under the London Traffic Act, 1924, Expenses in respect of Advances under the Light Railways Act, 1896, Expenses of maintaining Holyhead Harbour, Advances to meet Deficit in Ramsgate Harbour Fund, Advances to Caledonian and Crinan Canals, and Expenditure in connection with the Severn Barrage and other Investigations."

CLASS X.

2. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come' in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Railway Freight Rebates (Anticipation) Fund."

CLASS VI.

3. "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund."

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

4. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £30,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Inland Revenue Department."

CLASS III.

5. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Salaries of the Law Officers' Department; the Salaries and Expenses of the Departments of His Majesty's Procurator-General, and of the Solicitor for the Affairs of His Majesty's Treasury, and of the Department of the Director of Public Prosecutions; the Costs of Prosecutions, of other Legal Proceedings, and of Parliamentary Agency."
6. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,700, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for certain Miscellaneous Legal Expenses, for the
Salaries and Expenses of Arbitrators, etc., under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act, 1919, and for a Grant-in-Aid of the Expenses of the Law Society.

CLASS VIII.

7. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £5,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for the Expenses of Pensions, Compensation Allowances and Gratuities awarded to retired and disbanded members and staff of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and to widows and children of such members, including annuities to the National Debt Commisioners in respect of commutation of Compensation Allowances and certain extra-Statutory Payments."
8. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for Superannuation, Compensation, Compassionate and Additional Allowances and Gratuities under sundry Statutes, including the Superannuation (Diplomatic Service) Act, 1929; Compassionate Allowances, Gratuities, and Supplementary Pensions awarded by the Treasury, and under the Government of Ireland Act, 1920, by the Civil Service Committee.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (EXCESSES), 1928.

9. "That a sum, not exceeding £401,855 13s. 9d., be granted to His Majesty, to make good Excesses on certain Grants for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ended 31st day of March, 1929:—



Amount to be Voted.


Class VIII.
£
s.
d.


Vote 3. Royal Irish Constabulary Pensions, etc.
3,181
6
8


Revenue Departments. Vote 2. Inland Revenue
398,674
7
1



£401,855
13
9"

HOURS OF MEETING AND RISING OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the possibility of this House meeting earlier in the day and rising at a more reasonable hour in the evening, and to recommend, if it thinks fit, the necessary alterations in the Standing Orders.

Commander Bellairs, Mr. Clement Davies, Mr. Rhys Davies, Mr. Griffiths,
Commodore King, Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, Mr. McElwee, Sir Clive Morrison-Bell, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Charles Williams, and Mr. James Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Sixteen minutes after One o'Clock.